|
|
|
|
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 7:57:28 AM | If you tell my kids they are wrong then you are going to create distrust either with them to me or them to you.
Littletwin2000, you completely do not understand the seperation of church and state. It means that the state cannot regulate the religious beliefs of your children. Yes, they won't be taught bible study in school. However, the school no more tells them their religious beliefs are wrong than it tells them they are right. Is this so difficult to understand? Your kids can pray and read the bible all they want in school. No one will stop them. They can even talk to other kids about it. The teachers just can't teach religion in a public school or make children feel ostracised to their religious beliefs. Again, why can't you understand this?
Please explain how the state not regulating religion and not forcing your children to study it in school is going to make them not trust it or you. This makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever to me. Perhaps I have missed something and you can enlighten me.
Tsur, look at this statement from Wonka's earlier post:
Raziel- This is what that CR guy does; don't let it get to you brother. I find it very relevant that the person who comports himself in the least christian manner is the one who seems to think he's it's spokesperson. You know, CR, I've read the bible, and although I might not think it's gospel, I think it's peppered with some great historical literature and philosophy. And frankly, I'd like to know how you believe that you are being christian in your behaviour.
He seems to come in here with dubious to invalid arguments and does his best to bate and blatantly antagonize other people participating in the discussion. Then he turns around and accuses some of us of mocking his religious beliefs because we disagree with him. It is not mocking another person's belief to refute the argument and premise they present in a discussion. Sometimes its best just to ignore.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:26:03 AM | "Is there Evidence of Instantaneous Creation?"
Over the last several years, evidence has been gathered which seems to indicate that the earth was created (As the Bible says) in an instant. The evidence comes from the study of a feature of many igneous rocks. The radiohalo, found throughout various minerals, is a discoloration of a rock cause by the radio decay of a small speck of a radioactive element contained in the rock.
When a small speck or inclusion of a radioactive substance such as uranium-238, is trapped in the rock, the uranium emits alpha particles which destroy the crystal structure of the mineral. Since the alpha particles are emitted from the uranium with a particular speed, the alpha particles can travel only a certain distance through the rock before they stop. When the alpha particles stop, they discolor the rock.
Since the alpha particles are emitted in all directions, a spherical shell of discoloration is produced.
While uranium is decaying to lead, it passes through 15 steps. When an atom of uranium emits an alpha particle, the atom no longer is uranium but becomes thorium which in turn gives off a particle and turns into another element.
During this process alpha particles with five distinct velocities are given off. Because of this, when uranium is trapped in a rock a set of fine concentric discolorations of the rock will occur. The size of each halo is determined by the speed of the alpha particle, for each element in the decay chain has emitted particles with a specified velocity. Thus if one finds a halo of a certain radius, he often can determine what element formed the halo from the radius alone.
Polonium-218, polonium-214 and polonium-210 are the radioactive substances which are responsible for three halos in the characteristic five-ringed uranium halo. The three isotopes of polonium are found today only mixed up with uranium-238. This is because polonium decays so rapidly that is cannot be stored for more than a few minutes. The only reason it even exists is that it is constantly being formed by the decay of uranium.
Two factors are required before a halo can form:
1. A small speck of a radioactive substance must be included in the molten rock before it cools.
2. The rock must solidify and form a crystal before all of the radioactivity is ended.
Because of these considerations, it was surprising when two and three-ring halos were discovered in a size which indicated they were formed by the three isotopes of polonium. Since polonium-218 has a half-life of only three minutes, most polonium is almost entirely gone within 30 minutes. Therefore, to find a polonium-218 halo without any evidence of a uranium halo seems to indicate that the molten rock solidified within 30 minutes of the formation of of the polonium-218, and since the only known source of polonium-218 is from the decay of uranium, the only apparent source of that polonium would be creation.
The situation gets more interesting with polonium-214 halos-- the two-ringed halos mentioned above. The half-life of polonium-214 is .000164 second. This means that the rock would have had to cool in less than 1/1000th of a second after the polonium-214 was created. No known process of nature can cool and solidify a rock that rapidly.
"Gee, Is it possible that this proves God created the earth in an instant?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
R.V. Gentry, "Extinct Radioavtivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochoric Halo."
'Nature', Vol. 213, p.487.
R.V. Gentry, "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of a Certain Variant Radioactive Halos."
'Science', June 14,1968. p.1228-1230.
R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity,"
'Science', Vol. 173, p.727-731.
C. Moazed, R.M. Spector, and R.F. Ward, "Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternative Interpretation,"
'Science', Vol. 180, p. 1272-1274.
R.V. Gentry, et al, "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursers in Polonium Radiohalos,"
'Nature', Vol. 244, p.282-283.
R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosomological Perspective,"
'Science', Vol. 184, p. 62-66.
J.H. Fremlin, "Spectacle Haloes,"
'Nature', Vol. 258, p.269.
R.V. Gentry, "Gentry Replies,"
'Nature', Vol. 258, p.269,270.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And, Lizard? Many of you here 'ignore' substantiated evidence FOR Creation in here anyway, what's your point? LOL
As stated before, you are obviously of the mindset that says "Oh, that information comes from one who believes in Creation; and since I do not believe in it, I will ignore it and the person." ("My mind is made up, I am lizard, wonka, etc, don't confuse me with the facts.")
Gee, who died and made YOU in charge of censorship? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:33:22 AM | "Gee, Is it possible that this proves God created the earth in an instant?"
Not really.
No known process of nature can cool and solidify a rock that rapidly.
It just means that there are some natural processes that science has yet to fully explain. It isn't an indication of supernatural forces at work in nature.
---
This is a much more appropriate way to conduct yourself, and I appreciate it. Oops, I take that back, at the last second you added some of your characteristic bating. I was not suggesting people ignore you because of your arguments. I was suggesting that they ignore you because you rather trying to participate in a discussion for the purpose of sharing your ideas and evaluating those of others you are instead trying to bait people into side argument of pointless bickering that could possibly serve to get them banned from the forums. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:38:42 AM | Typical Lizard, yours and others all encompassing cop-out 'explanation' statement:
"well science has yet to fully explain..."
*DUUUUH*
You obviously do not WANT to see the Creation Supporters EVIDENCE even when staring you in the face.
"I am lizard, my mind is made up, Please, do not confuse me with facts."
(Speaking of 'appropriate' ways to conduct yourself?)
And, lizard..it's "BAITING"...not "Bating"...LOL
"BAIT" not "BATE"
(You so enjoy picking out so-called 'Creation' mistakes and errors, thought I'd return the 'favour')
Or, unless "you" are the MASTER Bate-er? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:43:28 AM | CR, I am sorry that my spelling error made it impossible for you to comprehend my post. See what I'm talking about, Tsur?
Or, unless "you" are the MASTER Bate-er?
Says volumes about his intentions in this thread and his intelligence level.
At this point I see no reason to do anything but ignore this guy. Anybody else have anything they would like to say in regard to the topic "Creation vs Evolution"?
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:48:46 AM | Evolution = No planned destination purpose for your life nothing? come on?!!
Creation = purpose a fundamental reason for you being here and a purpose for you to be!
Awesome huh? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:49:13 AM | Once again....
Typical lizard...
ignore the FACTS presented, and focus on his "wittle bwoken heart"...awww.
What's wrong lizard, that last factual posting get your brain on overload?
For one that is supposedly ignoring me, you are sure doing a great job of 'keeping the home fires burning' LOL
C'mon, oh expert lizard, I await a reply to my Factual posting on the EVIDENCE I posted above.
Or, are you too busy practising for the MASTER Bate-er tryouts?
(ooooo, look everyone, lizard corrected his spelling mistakes! "Enter applause here...") | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:55:30 AM | Hi Dei Gratia. Haven't seen you in here in a while.
Those aren't exactly accurate definitions of Evolution or Creation. There are actually interpretations of Creationism that actually take evolution into account so one doesn't necessarilly negate the other. Its only the oldest form of Creationism that really doesn't work with Evolution.
Evolution- Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.
Creationism- Belief in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe in the Bible and of all living things related in the Bible.
If someone invents a theological reason for me to be here that doesn't mean that believing it actually gives me a purpose (although I might believe that it did). | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 8:59:08 AM | "Is there Evidence of Instantaneous Creation?"
Over the last several years, evidence has been gathered which seems to indicate that the earth was created (As the Bible says) in an instant. The evidence comes from the study of a feature of many igneous rocks. The radiohalo, found throughout various minerals, is a discoloration of a rock cause by the radio decay of a small speck of a radioactive element contained in the rock.
When a small speck or inclusion of a radioactive substance such as uranium-238, is trapped in the rock, the uranium emits alpha particles which destroy the crystal structure of the mineral. Since the alpha particles are emitted from the uranium with a particular speed, the alpha particles can travel only a certain distance through the rock before they stop. When the alpha particles stop, they discolor the rock.
Since the alpha particles are emitted in all directions, a spherical shell of discoloration is produced.
While uranium is decaying to lead, it passes through 15 steps. When an atom of uranium emits an alpha particle, the atom no longer is uranium but becomes thorium which in turn gives off a particle and turns into another element.
During this process alpha particles with five distinct velocities are given off. Because of this, when uranium is trapped in a rock a set of fine concentric discolorations of the rock will occur. The size of each halo is determined by the speed of the alpha particle, for each element in the decay chain has emitted particles with a specified velocity. Thus if one finds a halo of a certain radius, he often can determine what element formed the halo from the radius alone.
Polonium-218, polonium-214 and polonium-210 are the radioactive substances which are responsible for three halos in the characteristic five-ringed uranium halo. The three isotopes of polonium are found today only mixed up with uranium-238. This is because polonium decays so rapidly that is cannot be stored for more than a few minutes. The only reason it even exists is that it is constantly being formed by the decay of uranium.
Two factors are required before a halo can form:
1. A small speck of a radioactive substance must be included in the molten rock before it cools.
2. The rock must solidify and form a crystal before all of the radioactivity is ended.
Because of these considerations, it was surprising when two and three-ring halos were discovered in a size which indicated they were formed by the three isotopes of polonium. Since polonium-218 has a half-life of only three minutes, most polonium is almost entirely gone within 30 minutes. Therefore, to find a polonium-218 halo without any evidence of a uranium halo seems to indicate that the molten rock solidified within 30 minutes of the formation of of the polonium-218, and since the only known source of polonium-218 is from the decay of uranium, the only apparent source of that polonium would be creation.
The situation gets more interesting with polonium-214 halos-- the two-ringed halos mentioned above. The half-life of polonium-214 is .000164 second. This means that the rock would have had to cool in less than 1/1000th of a second after the polonium-214 was created. No known process of nature can cool and solidify a rock that rapidly.
"Gee, Is it possible that this proves God created the earth in an instant?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADDITIONAL REFERENCE SOURCES:
R.V. Gentry, "Extinct Radioavtivity and the Discovery of a New Pleochoric Halo."
'Nature', Vol. 213, p.487.
R.V. Gentry, "Fossil Alpha-Recoil Analysis of a Certain Variant Radioactive Halos."
'Science', June 14,1968. p.1228-1230.
R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos: Some Unique Lead Isotope Ratios and Unknown Alpha Radioactivity,"
'Science', Vol. 173, p.727-731.
C. Moazed, R.M. Spector, and R.F. Ward, "Polonium Radiohalos: An Alternative Interpretation,"
'Science', Vol. 180, p. 1272-1274.
R.V. Gentry, et al, "Ion Microprobe Confirmation of Pb Isotope Ratios and Search for Isomer Precursers in Polonium Radiohalos,"
'Nature', Vol. 244, p.282-283.
R.V. Gentry, "Radiohalos in a Radiochronological and Cosomological Perspective,"
'Science', Vol. 184, p. 62-66.
J.H. Fremlin, "Spectacle Haloes,"
'Nature', Vol. 258, p.269.
R.V. Gentry, "Gentry Replies,"
'Nature', Vol. 258, p.269,270.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:03:51 AM | "Gee, Is it possible that this proves God created the earth in an instant?"
Not really.
No known process of nature can cool and solidify a rock that rapidly.
It just means that there are some natural processes that science has yet to fully explain. It isn't an indication of supernatural forces (fairies, elves, dieties) at work in nature.
Congratulations on your first non-antagonistic post all day, BTW. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:05:34 AM | Typical Lizard, yours and others all encompassing cop-out 'explanation' statement:
"well science has yet to fully explain..."
Facts, lizard, facts..not your conjectures.
And, "You're Most Welcome"
(See? I do have a serious AND polite side too.) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:07:17 AM | | It's much more of a cop out to simply say that every time you don't understand a natural phenomona or can't fully explain it, it must be the work of a supernatural being. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:07:21 AM | Firstly, I would like to just politely point out that I have never mocked anyones belifs and never would. I have repeatedly said that "if it works for you and you are comfortable and happy with it, then it right."
Now on to important maters.
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.
I have actualy done this more than once. I have given a brief outlne of abiogenesis, and then answered your question when it was asked, but just to back it up I shall say...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
Plenty of good information there on abiogenesis and probabilty.
all chemichal reactions no new matter/energy appears - it all simply rearranges itself.
No one in the field of abiogenesis has ever claimed that life did pop into existence... that would be the creationists claim. abiogenesis claims that mater dose rearange itself into more complex and stable forms and these complex forms combine to form primative cells.
The theory of evolution requires new more complex stuff to appear which would violate the first law of thermodynamics
Evolution takes hold at the point that the primative cell first divides and not before. abiogenesis and evolution are not the same thing.
Abiogenesis and evolution do not violate the second, or the first law of thermodynamics, as there is always a net loss of energy with any propsed method of abiogenesis when taken in a closed system but all systems are in fact open systems.
IU would like to see your evidence for the theory of evolution being proposed by anchient summerians... as an archaeologist I have never seen any.
For anyone intrested, the summerian creation myth goes like so. (please tell me where it sais, and life evolved from simple cells to complex forms?)
"After the (creation of the) mountain of heaven and earth,
An caused the Anunnaki to be born,
After heaven had been moved away from the earth,
After earth had been separated from heaven,
After the name of man had been fixed;
After An had carried off heaven,
After Enlil had carried off earth,"
(Sumerian Mythology, Samuel N. Kramer (Philadelphia, 1972) pp.37-41.)
So please stop saying that Evolution is summerian,if anything, summerian is the precurser of biblical creation. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:09:41 AM | lizard, it is obviously NOT a 'natural phenomena', if there is no known process in 'nature' for this event and evidence.
It is by far a much less 'leap of faith' to see that 'Creation' is the cause, moreso than the 'leaps of faith' many in the evolution sides take. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:13:54 AM | lizard, it is obviously NOT a 'natural phenomena', if there is no known process in 'nature' for this event and evidence.
It would only be precluded from being a natural phenomena if you could prove that it is impossible for any process in nature to explain it. You can only say that there is not one currently known. You cannot prove that one will never be found. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:16:50 AM | Lizard...
"present tense" discussions, ok?
Futuristic conjectures really do not hold much merit in a forum of this nature.
I posted factual, scientific evidences, and am still awaiting a rebuttal to those same facts.
Your guesswork, conjectures and speculations are but mere misinformed opinions at best.
Gotta go 'for now', but will return.
(darn, this thing called 'working for a living' sure plays havoc with spending time on here. darn darn.) | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:24:50 AM | It would only be precluded from being a natural phenomena if you could prove that it is impossible for any process in nature to explain it.
Okay, I removed the sentence you didn't like. It still proves your point wrong. The burdon of proof was with you and you failed to prove your point.
There are many processes in nature that science can't explain, the fact that we don't always have working theories does not mean that these phenomena are the result of the Easter Bunny.
Example:
A few days ago I was hearing thumping noises above my apartment and was finding pieces of cardboard all over my kitchen floor. I had a hard time figuring out the source. Today I determined there is a damned possum living in the A/C duct above my dining room. Turns out it has a nest and it kicks the pieces of the nest (made out of insulation and cardboard) out of my dining room vent and the A/C blows it into the kitchen. If I had said, a few days ago, that it must have been the result of supernatural powers because I couldn't track down the source of the problem I would have sounded awfully foolish.
Supernatural powers as an explanation for natural phenomena is the ultimate cop-out. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:30:30 AM | ACTUALLY Lizard...
Halloween is getting close....
MAY have been spooky scary little gremlins...Just a thought..*Wink*
And, what is so incredulous, about "the Supernatural"?
Or, as Oxford says: "That which cannot be explained by by natural or physical laws..."
Millions of people worldwide, and countless experts believe in "The Supernatural", with evidences to prove events worldwide also.
I'll not get into 'that' here, because there are other threads for the topic.
And, you have missed all that because..............?
But, speaking of 'burden of proof', you are still avoiding the factual evidences I posted back...Now you are simply trying to be evasive...Stop with the word play, conjectures, speculations and vent stories, and get back to factual presentations.
But lizard, the fact that large numbers of people with FACTS and EXPERTISE support an argument for Creation is the key. :-))
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:31:35 AM | The fact that a large number of people support an argument (ghosts, bigfoot, the monkey-man, lockness monster) does not make that argument valid.
I wasn't evading your evidence. You said that nothing known in nature could make rocks cool that fast. Obviously something in nature can or it would not have happened. Magical fairies or a diety didn't do it. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 9:41:44 AM | CR, all of those sources you showed are kind of irrelevant considering almost that entire post you just made came nearly verbatum from "Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity" by Josh McDowell and Don Stewart.
Here I will quote someone from another thread on a different site in response to that argument:
One unexplained mystery does not help your case.
A) Even if it did prove evolution false (which it doesn't) that does not lead automatically to Christianity being true.
B) The fact that you have one unexplained mystery to point to, while you also have loads of other inconsistances to explain doesn't really help your case
C) Science isn't like religion. With religion everything must be right. It is the word of god, if it isn't right it isn't anything. And one thing wrong tears down the entire work. If a mistake is found in a scientific theory it doesn't discount the entire theory. It just means that a reworking of the theory is in order to account for the new information.
D) In the end no one knows (that I am aware) why the phenomena with the polonium halos has occured. But christian apologetics are claiming that "Since we don't know what caused it, instant creation is true". Which isn't any kind of scientific mindset at all. It never fails to amaze me how they can go through all kinds of trouble digging crap like this up, and then fail at the most basic levels.
E) 1/1000th of a second? Kind of slow for an omnipotent being don't you think? | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 10:01:31 AM | lizard....so, what it your point?
I was quoting experts on the subject.
So, nice try, but it is not irrelevant at all. Quite the contrary.
In case you'd not noticed, I also in the post, included many Scientists references to read on.
All you have replied with, are someones opinions, conjectures and speculations and also misquotes, (of Creationists, et al.) not backed with any facts, from an un-named source.
and, 1/1000th of a second is slow?
Hmm...gee, what do you consider 'fast'?
The time it takes to comb your hair on your head?
(Just teasing there lizard, we have the same barber)
So, AGAIN, reply with facts; not continued opinions, speculations, conjectures and un-named and un-scientific sources.
And especially with misleading statements of what Creationists actually do say. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 10:29:57 AM |
and since the only known source of polonium-218 is from the decay of uranium, the only apparent source of that polonium would be creation.
Or the decay hapened before the solidification.
Uranium formation > Molten uranium decay > Solidifcation > Polonium decay = Results shown. No advanced phisics or metaphisics or mumbo-jumbo neaded.
But I shall leave it up to an expert phisacist to explain in better detail why this research can not be taken seriously.
Gentry adopts and expands on the work of Joly (1917) that polonium isotopes were the most likely cause of the features observed. Joly did most of his work with discoloration haloes in the first decade of the Twentieth Century, a time when the structure of the atom was just being discovered, and before the crystal structure of minerals had been unraveled. This was also the period when the nature of radioactivity was just being uncovered. Joly made the very speculative assumption that if alpha particles could travel 3-7 centimeters in air, then they would only travel 1/2000 of that distance in biotite mica. From this generalization, and without considering the variability in the density and the crystal structure of the host mica (or even the variable density of air),In his research, Gentry followed Joly's approach of defining an idealized model based on the average distance traveled in air by alpha particles of different energy. He then measured concentric ring haloes in mica (or fluorite, or cordierite) to see which ones matched his model. Of course, the large assumption here is that his model is correct.
Thus, it is not likely that polonium 214 is the likely cause of the halos observed as it would have lost its energy far faster in a tightly packed medium like mica and so would show much smaller halos than those observed.
Gentry also neglects to mention that his samples come from recent precambrian rocks worldwide, not primordial precambrian rock. As recent precambrian rock can be cooled rapidly, his argument again falls flat.
Gentry makes no mention of the fact that he is phisisist and not a geographer, in fact he has no founding in georgarphy at all.
Finaly, his asumption, ingores all of the evidence provided by other researchers in the field of Radioactive decay who have found the cooling rate of the earth to be well in excess of his estamations. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 10:30:33 AM |
lizard....so, what it your point?
I already stated it. Clearly. | |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 10:31:57 AM | 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."
The problem being that the ToE doesn't contradict the 2LoT. And further, Prigogine's article said so. I gave you links to a discussion of the Creationist misquoting of Prigogine's article.
Misquoting is either lying, if deliberate, or repeating lies, if from simple ignorance of the truth.
You posted the quote (which is by Prigoigne) as support for your position (from msg #812 in this thread, at least) that the ToE contradicts the 2LoT.
Canadian Romantic wrote:
I mean, Gee, so what if the THEORY of Evolution contradicts the second LAW of Thermo Dynamics, eh?
You quoted Prigogine (via Time, you claim), in article #859 of this thread.
I Googled for your use of the phrase "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.", since it seems beyond your generally expressed level of literacy to have come up with that on your own.
Oddly I found a hit: http://www.freethoughtdebater.com/forumView.do?id=312
Now that article is clearly taken from a source as it has footnotes included. So where did that article, which quoted Time, come from?
Further searching finds it comes from Josh McDowell's book Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity, from Chapter 18. See http://www.greatcom.org/resources/reasons_skeptics/ch_18/default.htm
So now we see that your post *was* actually taken from a Creationist book, as McDowell is *quite* well known as a Creationist.
Now, given that you claimed your source was "not from any 'Christian' publication", we can assume you didn't check your quote, even when challenged on it.
Now, looking at what seems to be a text of McDowell's book, we see that the *only* part of the quote you gave from Time magazine was ""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 for the phenomena of phase transition". If you look, you see that quote is footnote #7, which goes to "7. Kenneth M. Pierce, "Putting Darwin Back in the Dock", Time, March 16, 1981, p.81" (see http://www.time.com/time/archive/preview/0,10987,922471,00.html?internalid=ACA) for a way to get the article, but it costs $).
The rest of your quote is by a Creationist author, not Time, and not Prigogine. Your Creationist source *did* quote Pierce's article in Time of course.
I look forward to your explanation of where you found your copy of the McDowell article from on the web. You were wrong that the quote was from Time, you were wrong that your source wasn't 'Christian'.
In the mean time I suggest you learn something about checking your sources. You're not the first Creationist to mindlessly repeat lies because you didn't understand them, of course, and you won't be the last.
Or will you simply ignore your errors again?
--R.
| |
|
| Creation vs Evolution
Posted: 10/27/2005 10:36:12 AM | Oh by the way, Dei...
Evolution = No planned destination purpose for your life nothing? come on?!! Whilst it is true that life has no higher or guided purpose in Evolutionary terms, it dose still have a purpose, and that is survival through the propgation of the species (something I fully intend to do this weekend ). | |
|
|
| Page 41 of 156
|
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, 67 |
|
Home
login 
