http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st...volution_debateQuote:
Wisconsin City Allows Teaching Creationism
GRANTSBURG, Wis. - The city's school board has revised its science curriculum to allow the teaching of creationism, prompting an outcry from more than 300 educators who urged that the decision be reversed.
School board members believed that a state law governing the teaching of evolution was too restrictive. The science curriculum "should not be totally inclusive of just one scientific theory," said Joni Burgin, superintendent of the district of 1,000 students in northwest Wisconsin.
Last month, when the board examined its science curriculum, language was added calling for "various models/theories" of origin to be incorporated.
The decision provoked more than 300 biology and religious studies faculty members to write a letter last week urging the Grantsburg board to reverse the policy. It follows a letter sent previously by 43 deans at Wisconsin public universities.
"Insisting that teachers teach alternative theories of origin in biology classes takes time away from real learning, confuses some students and is a misuse of limited class time and public funds," said Don Waller, a botanist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Wisconsin law mandates that evolution be taught, but school districts are free to create their own curricular standards, said Joe Donovan, a spokesman for the state Department of Public Instruction.
There have been scattered efforts around the nation for other school boards to adopt similar measures. Last month the Dover Area School Board in Pennsylvania voted to require the teaching of alternative theories to evolution, including "intelligent design" — the idea that life is too complex to have developed without a creator.
The state education board in Kansas was heavily criticized in 1999 when it deleted most references to evolution. The decision was reversed in 2001.
In March, the Ohio Board of Education narrowly approved a lesson plan that some critics contended opens the door to teaching creationism.
Thoughts?
I honestly don't think it belongs in a science class, simply because it doesn't have any bearing on anything else students will learn. I believe that God created everything, although the process used is unimportant. Honestly, the Bible doesn't say how it was done, just that God spoke and it happened. That doesn't establish anything except for God being responsible for everything getting here. Essentially, that's all the Bible has to say about it. You're not gonna get a lot of scientifically relevant content outta that. Now, it might be worthwhile to mention creationism in parallel with the biographical information on Darwin and the history of origin theories that are found in most science curricula, but you can't toss out all information that might presumably support Darwinism, as there's some hard science in there.
I don't think it's possible to remove all speculation of a philosophical nature from the science books. Honestly, things we assume are scientific fact are disproven rather frequently. Science can only explain what normally happens in the physical world, which separates it entirely from the sphere of influence with which people's religious beliefs concern themselves.
there is no science to Creationism, it should be kept out of the science curriculum. I dont think religion should be involved in school systems, if wanna learn about religion go to a place of worship or in a school that affiliated with religion, not public schools.
I'll agree that Creationism isn't a science. There's no evidence for it, like there is to support Darwinism, and science requires evidence. At best, it's a philosophy.
I do think, however, that religion has a place in our schools, just as philosophy does. I think religion can have a positive effect on our world, one individual at a time, if taught in an unbiased manner. I wouldn't study it if I thought otherwise. But if a school is going to teach one religion, and I think that, if it is taught, it should always be an elective, then that school should be required to teach a number of religions without undue bias. At least teach the major religions and broaden the view of those students who want to learn but would probably never be exposed to alternate ways of thinking otherwise.
Quote:
I'll agree that Creationism isn't a science. There's no evidence for it, like there is to support Darwinism, and science requires evidence. At best, it's a philosophy.
Not true. You just haven't heard any of the evidence because they aren't allowed to in school. It becomes a ciclicle argument we create in our head. I learned in school that darwinism is true and I never heard any evidence contrary therefore no contrary evidence should be allowed in school. Durring the Skopes monkey trials Creationism was the only option and the evolutionists argued that children should be allowed to hear both sides and decide for themselves. Now that they're the only game in town they aren't so concerned with the equality they once fought for.
What IS the evidence for creationism, then?
I see no need for Creationism to be taught in a science class. It should only come up in discussion of debates over or arguments against Darwinism.
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
What IS the evidence for creationism, then?
God and Adam and Eve, duh! And snakes with useless feet bones inside of them proving that they used to have legs and God removed them as punishment for tricking Eve.
Oh, and the Garden of Eden they found last week in Chicago.
Plus the fact that people are so fuckin' stupid sometimes. We MUST be the result of billions of years worth of inbreeding.
DK, thanks for getting this thread started. I was debating doing it myself.
Quote:
winged creature said:
there is no science to Creationism, it should be kept out of the science curriculum. I dont think religion should be involved in school systems, if wanna learn about religion go to a place of worship or in a school that affiliated with religion, not public schools.
This is essentially the argument, to me, in a nutshell.
There is no science in Creatiionism. It is not science when the theory is presumed to be correct prior to beginning any kind of investigation. The whole point of SCIENCE is that a theory is submitted for refutation. That is, the goal of science is to put a theory "in harm's way" to determine if it stands up to rigorous empirical scrutiny.
Creationism fails to do this because its whole premise is that "there is a God," which is not subject to empirical refutation or support.
I'm not saying Creationism does not have a place in somewhere in public education. Perhaps a philosophy class or an Ethics class. But it does not belong in a science class.
Is our country going backward?
Quote:
Creationism fails to do this because its whole premise is that "there is a God," which is not subject to empirical refutation or support.
And the "natural sciences" as defined by Darwin and later by Leaky rest on teh premise that teh world formed independant of God. As unscientific as it seems to assume there is a God, it's equally unscientific to assume there is no God.
As far as being placed in "harms way" that is exactly what natural design theorists want is to be juxtaposed in the pubic sphere so people can make up thier minds for themselves. When public schools consistantly teach evidence that has been roundly rejected even by other evolutionists, we know there's a problem.. If evolutionary science was as strong as ,perported they would jump at the chance to put thier theories in harms way as having to prove itself against opposing viewpoints, but like I said, if you're the only game in town then open diologue doesn't seem as apealing as it once did.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And the "natural sciences" as defined by Darwin and later by Leaky rest on teh premise that teh world formed independant of God. As unscientific as it seems to assume there is a God, it's equally unscientific to assume there is no God.
No.
The natural sciences make no claims regarding a god. They rest on the premise of investigating pheneomena using the senses (Empiricism). There is no claim about a god one way or another.
Teaching Creationism is really the church's job. Long time ago in my bio class it was brought up & briefly explained in the section about various theories. That was valid but forcing science to include teaching faith based principles is just nutty.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
As far as being placed in "harms way" that is exactly what natural design theorists want is to be juxtaposed in the pubic sphere so people can make up thier minds for themselves.
Most scientists you're going to come across are going to vehemently disagree with the idea that in a science class, people should make up their own minds. It's not Philosophy. It's Science. It's about empirical investigation using methods of systematic inquiry, scrutiny, and rigor. It's not about, for example, making up your mind if the atom is made up of protons and neutrons.
You may come up with an idea and decide you want to test its empirical validity, but the answer isn't about making up your mind based on whether or not you like the outcome.
The prescence or lack thereof of a deity of any sort is not (yet?) scientifically testable, so it cannot come into play in science, which involves hypothesis-experiment-theory. It's as simple as that.
Quote:
Uschi said:
Plus the fact that people are so fuckin' stupid sometimes. We MUST be the result of billions of years worth of inbreeding.
This would make a great signature.
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
The prescence or lack thereof of a deity of any sort is not (yet?) scientifically testable, so it cannot come into play in science, which involves hypothesis-experiment-theory. It's as simple as that.
In here, I've found that nothing is as "simple as that." But I dig where yer coming from... 
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Not true. You just haven't heard any of the evidence because they aren't allowed to in school. It becomes a ciclicle argument we create in our head. I learned in school that darwinism is true and I never heard any evidence contrary therefore no contrary evidence should be allowed in school. Durring the Skopes monkey trials Creationism was the only option and the evolutionists argued that children should be allowed to hear both sides and decide for themselves. Now that they're the only game in town they aren't so concerned with the equality they once fought for.
Yes, I have been taught creationism, but there is nothing scientific about it.
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more. Kids should be able to get both sides of the fence and left to decide for themselves.
They already are using the same kind of thinking for sex ed: teaching about abstinence vs. "safe sex."
Problem is that there are lots of different religions. Creationism really just applies to Christianity. Why not teach Hindu creation? Or Shinto? Why don't we see how the Algonquin Indians match up?
This is great for a philosophy class, not for a Biology classroom.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
I'll agree that Creationism isn't a science. There's no evidence for it, like there is to support Darwinism, and science requires evidence. At best, it's a philosophy.
Yes there is, it's been proven and both our senior pastors at my church are biologists. In facte Scott, one of the co senior pastors, just did a sermon on proving the Case for God's Exsitence, 2 weeks ago and he disproved Darwinsism. You can Listen to it here. You'll need Real audio to listen. I was there the night of first serivce and it was a great seromon. For anyone having problems with that link, you can find the page with all the seroms and links for each one acrrodingly, here. This is the third week of the series and it's a great one.
Quote:
Disco Steve said:
Problem is that there are lots of different religions. Creationism really just applies to Christianity. Why not teach Hindu creation? Or Shinto? Why don't we see how the Algonquin Indians match up?
This is great for a philosophy class, not for a Biology classroom.
Christianity abides all science. The other religions you noted don't as much.
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more.
That is completely ridiculous.
Evolution is a well -supported theory. If the evidence continues to add up and add up, then it's a legitimate position.
Does anyone have any a link to an actual curriculum that is now being taught in schools? I don't simply mean a creationism website, since there are plenty of those -- I mean an online curriculum being taught in at least one school somewhere in the U.S. I'd be interested in seeing what will actually be taught, and whether it leans more towards science or more towards philosophy.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Evolution is a well -supported theory. If the evidence continues to add up and add up, then it's a legitimate position.
Quote:
That is completely ridiculous.
1) A theory is a theory.
2) Read up a bit more on a subject before you defend it. "Add up and add up" isn't an accurate description of the evidence pertaining to evolution over the past century.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Evolution is a well -supported theory. If the evidence continues to add up and add up, then it's a legitimate position.
Quote:
That is completely ridiculous.
1) A theory is a theory.
2) Read up a bit more on a subject before you defend it. "Add up and add up" isn't an accurate description of the evidence pertaining to evolution over the past century.
You may not believe this, but Science is all about testing theory.
But hey, let's set aside Evolutionary Theory.
Criticism for or agaisnt Evolution does nothing to elevate Creationism into the realm of Science.
This argument in this thread is less about Evolution and more about the inadequacies of Creationism as a scientific theory.
It's hard to tell from the "thrown-togetherness" of that post, but I think you just tried to derail my point.
Eh. Whatever. You're still on the defensive with that "inadaqcuecies in Creationism" comment. And that speaks vloumes. So I'm heartened anyway.
Quote:
Pariah said:
It's hard to tell from the "thrown-togetherness" of that post, but I think you just tried to derail my point.
Eh. Whatever. You're still on the defensive with that "inadaqcuecies in Creationism" comment. And that speaks vloumes. So I'm heartened anyway.
Do you genuinely think Creationism should be taught in a Science cirriculum?
There are reputable scientists who disagree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. There are other theories of evolution than Darwin's. If an evolutionary theory passes muster as a scientific theory, I'm all for its inclusion in a cirriculum.
My focus in this thread is not to pit Darwinian Evolution against Creationism as if those two positions are the only theories of the development/relationship of species. My concern in this thread is about the scientific validity of Creationism and the teaching of Creationism as if has scientific merit.
It certainly has philosphical merit and I have no problem with its inclusion somewhere else in a cirriculum.
Quote:
The Time Trust said:
Does anyone have any a link to an actual curriculum that is now being taught in schools? I don't simply mean a creationism website, since there are plenty of those -- I mean an online curriculum being taught in at least one school somewhere in the U.S. I'd be interested in seeing what will actually be taught, and whether it leans more towards science or more towards philosophy.
http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/dpi/standards/scif12.html
Here're the performance criteria for 12th grade in Wisconsin for for Life and Environmental Science.
Performance Standards
By the end of grade twelve, students will:
THE CELL
F.12.1 Evaluate* the normal structures and the general and special functions* of cells in single-celled and multiple-celled organisms
F.12.2 Understand* how cells differentiate and how cells are regulated
THE MOLECULAR BASIS OF HEREDITY
F.12.3 Explain* current scientific ideas and information about the molecular and genetic basis of heredity
F.12.4 State the relationships between functions* of the cell and functions of the organism as related to genetics and heredity
BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION*
F.12.5 Understand* the theory of evolution*, natural selection, and biological classification
F.12.6. Using concepts of evolution* and heredity, account for changes* in species and the diversity of species, include the influence of these changes on science, e.g. breeding of plants or animals
THE INTERDEPENDENCE OF ORGANISMS
F.12.7 Investigate* how organisms both cooperate and compete in ecosystems
F.12.8 Using the science themes*, infer* changes in ecosystems prompted by the introduction of new species, environmental conditions, chemicals, and air, water, or earth pollution
MATTER, ENERGY AND ORGANIZATION IN LIVING SYSTEMS
F.12.9 Using the science themes*, investigate* energy* systems* (related to food chains) to show* how energy is stored in food (plants and animals) and how energy is released by digestion and metabolism
F.12.10 Understand* the impact of energy* on organisms in living systems*
F.12.11 Investigate* how the complexity and organization* of organisms accommodates the need for obtaining, transforming, transporting, releasing, and eliminating the matter and energy* used to sustain an organism
THE BEHAVIOR OF ORGANISMS
F.12.12 Trace how the sensory and nervous systems* of various organisms react to the internal and external environment and transmit survival or learning stimuli to cause changes in behavior or responses
Quote:
There are reputable scientists who disagree with Darwinian Evolutionary Theory. There are other theories of evolution than Darwin's. If an evolutionary theory passes muster as a scientific theory, I'm all for its inclusion in a cirriculum.
My focus in this thread is not to pit Darwinian Evolution against Creationism as if those two positions are the only theories of the development/relationship of species. My concern in this thread is about the scientific validity of Creationism and the teaching of Creationism as if has scientific merit.
OK, on your first comment. There are reputable scientists on both sides of the isle. Af far as passing the muster of scientific theory. When I was in High-School they taught us about Lucy, without mentioning that it had been discredited the day of it's unveiling by fellow evolutionis and I've recently learned that now, a decade later, they're still teaching it.
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Evolutionary theory as I understand it makes no comment about a God..."God" is not something approachable by Science.
Creationism assumes the causal state, that there is a God. Science NEVER assumes the causal state. It seeks to find the causal state. That fact right there rules out Creationism as a scientific theory.
Why is it such a big deal to those of your more religious than I to have Creationism taught in a science class?
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK and your second statement, first your saying that Creationism is automatically invalid because it assumes there is a God, but evolution assumes that creationism is false and DOES assume that the world developed independant of God. Now since you say it has NO scientific merrit you must have exaustively studied it in order to rule out any scientific merrit, so if you would please, without using google, tell me 5 thinks you KNOW about intellegent design theory.
Evolutionary theory as I understand it makes no comment about a God..."God" is not something approachable by Science.
Creationism assumes the causal state, that there is a God. Science NEVER assumes the causal state. It seeks to find the causal state. That fact right there rules out Creationism as a scientific theory.
Why is it such a big deal to those of your more religious than I to have Creationism taught in a science class?
First off simply by ruling out creationism you are assuming there is no devine intervention. THAT is an assumption. The theory in creationism is that creatures are intellegently designed. It's babble fish logic to assume that because the theory is that there is an intellegent force involved it can't be scientific. So what you've done is ruled out a possibility without testing it and THAT is unscientific.
What most of "creation science" does is challenge the theory of evolution. The reason why relegious people want the science of creation taght in schools or at least a challenge to evolution is because otherwise kids are taught wrongly that what they're taught at home is anti-scientific that thier belifs aren't an option outside of theoretical. As I've mentioned before only to fall on dead ears what most schools are teaching are debunked theories. So i would ask you why would you be apposed to legitimate challenges to YOUR unprovable theory? Why are you opposed to both sides of this story being told?
On a similar note:
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041108/ap_on_re_us/evolution_debateQuote:
Evolution Case Opens in Georgia Court
ATLANTA - A warning sticker in suburban Atlanta science textbooks that says evolution is "a theory, not a fact" was challenged in court Monday as an unlawful promotion of religion.
The disclaimer was adopted by Cobb County school officials in 2002 after hundreds of parents signed a petition criticizing the textbooks for treating evolution as fact without discussing alternate theories, including creationism.
"The religious views of some that contradict science cannot dictate curriculum," American Civil Liberties Union (news - web sites) attorney Maggie Garrett argued Monday before U.S. District Judge Clarence Cooper. The trial is expected to last several days.
But a lawyer for Cobb County schools, Linwood Gunn, held up a copy of a textbook's table of contents Monday that showed dozens of pages about evolution.
"The sticker doesn't exist independently of the 101 pages about evolution," Gunn said. "This case is not about a sticker which has 33 words on it. ... It's about textbooks that say a lot more than that."
The stickers read: "This textbook contains material on evolution. Evolution is a theory, not a fact, regarding the origin of living things. This material should be approached with an open mind, studied carefully and critically considered."
One of the parents who filed the lawsuit, Jeffrey Selman, said the stickers discredit the science of evolution.
"It's like saying everything that follows this sticker isn't true," he said.
The U.S. Supreme Court (news - web sites) ruled in 1987 that creationism was a religious belief that could not be taught in public schools along with evolution.
Gunn said he expects the warning will hold up in court, saying it "provides a unique opportunity for critical thinking."
"It doesn't say anything about faith," Gunn said. "It doesn't say anything about religion."
Thoughts?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
First off simply by ruling out creationism you are assuming there is no devine intervention. THAT is an assumption. The theory in creationism is that creatures are intellegently designed. It's babble fish logic to assume that because the theory is that there is an intellegent force involved it can't be scientific. So what you've done is ruled out a possibility without testing it and THAT is unscientific.
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Quote:
What most of "creation science" does is challenge the theory of evolution.
Which theory of evolution?
Quote:
The reason why relegious people want the science of creation taght in schools or at least a challenge to evolution is because otherwise kids are taught wrongly that what they're taught at home is anti-scientific that thier belifs aren't an option outside of theoretical. As I've mentioned before only to fall on dead ears what most schools are teaching are debunked theories. So i would ask you why would you be apposed to legitimate challenges to YOUR unprovable theory? Why are you opposed to both sides of this story being told?
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this! Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum. You can put it in a philosophy cirriculum or a comparative relgions cirriculum. But not a science one.
I see everyone ignored what I posted.
Quote:
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Gods existance cannot be tested, but is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world?
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
So lets be fair, eh?
Quote:
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this!
At least this is a question of science rather than an emotional debate.
Quote:
Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
God's involvement shouldn't be assumed any more than it should be ruled out. Evolotion ASSUMES we evolved! My only contention is that itellegent design THEORY is no less reasonable than evolution THEORY. If kids can't be taught that we are intellegently designed then why should the be taught that we weren't? You're arguing on behalf of one unprovable theory against another. If you want to argue that ONLY FACTS can be taught in science class in school, fine then make that argument, but if you're going to allow one unproven theory then you should be allowed to teach others. I wonder if you're opposed to school vouchers?
Quote:
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum.
Agreed it should be taught along side evolution theory wich also has no place in our science classes.
Question for JJ and all:
Is the SETI a scientific endevor or not?
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum.
Agreed it should be taught along side evolution theory wich also has no place in our science classes.
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Yes there is, it's been proven and both our senior pastors at my church are biologists. In facte Scott, one of the co senior pastors, just did a sermon on proving the Case for God's Exsitence, 2 weeks ago and he disproved Darwinsism. You can Listen to it here. You'll need Real audio to listen. I was there the night of first serivce and it was a great seromon. For anyone having problems with that link, you can find the page with all the seroms and links for each one acrrodingly, here. This is the third week of the series and it's a great one.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
I see everyone ignored what I posted.
You'd probably get more responses if you summarized the sermon and listed specifically the different ways you feel your pastors disproved Darwinism and proved God's existence. That way people will be able to support or refute your points.
Also, you might wanna keep in mind that Darwinism doesn't work to disprove God's existence. It doesn't even touch on the subject.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
And I'm not saying Creationism/intelligent Design theory can't be taught in schools. I'm saying it doesn't belong in a Science Cirriculum.
Agreed it should be taught along side evolution theory wich also has no place in our science classes.
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
I dunno, MICRO-evolution, survival of the fittest, Kingdom,
Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species. I don't think macro-evolution needs to be taught and i don't think all other topics are exhausted to the extent that if you don't teach it there will be a vacume where the kids stare blakely not being educated.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Yes there is, it's been proven and both our senior pastors at my church are biologists. In facte Scott, one of the co senior pastors, just did a sermon on proving the Case for God's Exsitence, 2 weeks ago and he disproved Darwinsism. You can Listen to it here. You'll need Real audio to listen. I was there the night of first serivce and it was a great seromon. For anyone having problems with that link, you can find the page with all the seroms and links for each one acrrodingly, here. This is the third week of the series and it's a great one.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
I see everyone ignored what I posted.
You'd probably get more responses if you summarized the sermon and listed specifically the different ways you feel your pastors disproved Darwinism and proved God's existence. That way people will be able to support or refute your points.
Also, you might wanna keep in mind that Darwinism doesn't work to disprove God's existence. It doesn't even touch on the subject.
Actually, it works better when you listen to what he had to say, vs me summarizing it since I can't do it justice which is why I just linked it.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
What is SETI?
SETI
Those giant dishes that seach for signs of extra terestrial itelegence.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I dunno, MICRO-evolution
What does this explain?
Quote:
survival of the fittest
Is that a scientific theory or just a popular set of buzzwords?
Quote:
Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Order, Family, Genus, Species.
This is a classification system, not any kind of explanation.
Quote:
I don't think macro-evolution needs to be taught and i don't think all other topics are exhausted to the extent that if you don't teach it there will be a vacume where the kids stare blakely not being educated.
But if you're proposing to remove something already in the cirriculum, you have to offer something in its place, and you have to have a valid reason for doing so.
Quote:
What does this explain?
You don't know?
Quote:
Is that a scientific theory or just a popular set of buzzwords?
I was just throwing stuff out that allready taught.
Quote:
This is a classification system, not any kind of explanation.
So you think it's science classes job to explain something, even if no proven explaination exists?
Quote:
But if you're proposing to remove something already in the cirriculum, you have to offer something in its place, and you have to have a valid reason for doing so.
No, I don't. If I suggest they remove something from the cirriculum that doesn't mean I have to fill it. This is such a dodge, It's not even funny. You set a standard that you thought should bar intellegent design theory from being taught, I said that evolution theory should be removed for the same reason and your response is to say i can't suggest it be removed if I don't fill the cirriculum? Do you work for a shool board? Please explain to me how that has ANYTHING to do with what we're talking about. Oh and you could alwayse answer my other challenges too, because I'm sure not going to spend my time debating anything so burricratic as what to fill the curriculem with. Fill it with science and not theory if that's your standard.
See, I said all this:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Ok, tell me how one goes about submitting intelligent design theory to an empirical test.
Gods existance cannot be tested, but is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world?
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
So lets be fair, eh?
Quote:
For the same damn reason I've been harping on this!
At least this is a question of science rather than an emotional debate.
Quote:
Intelligent Design or Creationism all ASSUME some sort of divine/supernatural force/being/entity created life on earth and is responsible for the evolution of species. The cause of everything is, therefore, assumed from the outset. And that is not Science. Science works to find the cause and it goes about without presupposing the cause.
God's involvement shouldn't be assumed any more than it should be ruled out. Evolotion ASSUMES we evolved! My only contention is that itellegent design THEORY is no less reasonable than evolution THEORY. If kids can't be taught that we are intellegently designed then why should the be taught that we weren't? You're arguing on behalf of one unprovable theory against another. If you want to argue that ONLY FACTS can be taught in science class in school, fine then make that argument, but if you're going to allow one unproven theory then you should be allowed to teach others. I wonder if you're opposed to school vouchers?
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue 
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue
After awhile, I just get tired of banging my head against the wall.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue
After awhile, I just get tired of banging my head against the wall.
Yu never answered my challenge and it looks like you don't intend to, so my point stands. Good bye.
To chime in for a minute...
The Theory of Evolution is...interesting. I think it is valid to question whether this is a scientific theory or not. I think it's more of a leap of faith to say that humans evolved from apes. There is no question we are related. But, I think we evolved along similar evolutionary lines. We have found so many forms of man preHomoSapien. I don't think we can deny that we weren't always HomoSapiens. I think in this instance the Bible should be interpreted a bit more loosely. When it says God created man from the dust of the Earth, can't that mean that God began man's own evolutionary process? Just like when it says the Earth was created in six days, can't each day actually be millions of years long? If you get into the Hebrew, the word Yom, which means day, can also mean a period of time. There is hidden meaning in the words themselves. And this is where I start to get off on a religious discussion...
Anyway, I have no problem with the stickers on the books that advise students to keep an open mind when studying the Theory of Evolution. After all, it has yet to be proven as fact, and should not be taught or presented that way. I think that it should be discussed in science as a lesson, but it is a lesson on theory, on having an open mind, not on evolution. It is important to bring it up in science because there are many scientific theories that have yet to be proven. If we remove the Theory of Evolution from science class, then why not cut out maybe a third of the text book itself? The Theroy of Relativity is still called a theory. There are many theories taught in science. There are many things we have yet to prove. But we still discuss them. We have to. It's part of the learning process.
To counter discussing the Theory of Evolution in science, I think it should be discussed in a philosophical mannor, along with other theories of creation. Because they are all theories. Well, I believe God created the world, but I know that many people don't. It's been quite a few thousand years since God split the Red Sea.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
And you're response was this:
Quote:
What do you suggest to replace evolutionary theory with?
Talk about getting to the heart of the issue
After awhile, I just get tired of banging my head against the wall.
Yu never answered my challenge and it looks like you don't intend to, so my point stands.
Criminey, you've said so much and it's not like I sit here and take notes on what you write...
You mean the question about SETI? What challenge is there in that? It's just a question.
Quote:
Good bye.
A bit petulant there, no?
I was saying bye, because it seemed implied that you weren't going to be responding to my challege wich was as follows in response to your challenge, I answered you and issued a challenge in teh same light:
Quote:
Gods existance cannot be tested, but is “Emergence by naturalistic processes of the universe from disordered matter and emergence of life from nonlife” confirmed by tests in the empirical world?
Is “The sufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of present living kinds from simple earlier kinds” confirmed by tests in the empirical world? Breeding experiments have shown that natural selection can produce a limited variation in one kind. Experiments on generations of fruit flies have shown that random modifications of genes can cause a loss of information resulting in inferior mutant varieties of fruit flies, but no new kinds of insects. In these experiments, scientists have not been able to use artificial selection to create a new kind of insect because mutation hasn’t produced anything suitable for selection.
The SETI question was for all, but I ask again. Is the SETI search for intelligent life throughout the cosmos a scientific endevor or not?
You know, WBAM...I'm continuing to give this some more thought...
I may reconsider.
As long as any presentation on Intelligent Design does not advcoate one religious faith over another, I guess I have less problem with it than I thought.
As a parent, I would address it on a case-by-case basis. As someone with training in research, I would judge the merits of how the teacher presents it and what the course materials are.
And SETI? Frankly, I don't really care about the search for life on other planets.
Quote:
As long as any presentation on Intelligent Design does not advcoate one religious faith over another
Agreed, wich is why I TRY to use the term intellegent design over creationism. Itellegent design curriculem would challenge evolution theory as well as look for evidence of intellegent design in nature. It would not (in the public schools) teach the Genisis narritive or try to prove scientiffically that the God of Abraham is the author of creation and that man was created in His image. They can save that for a comparitive religion class.
How does the theory of intelligent design contradict the theory of evolution? This is a serious question since I'm not prive to the difference between "intelligent design" and Creationism.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
How does the theory of intelligent design contradict the theory of evolution? This is a serious question since I'm not prive to the difference between "intelligent design" and Creationism.
From Terestrial Soup:
Creationism is the belief that the Biblical account of Creation in the book of Genesis accurately depicts the process God used to make the world and all that is in it.
The Intelligent Design Movement is an intellectual, scientific, and theological alternative to the naturalistic perspective pervading the bulk of western thought today. The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) consists of three main branches: it seeks to be a scientific investigation into the effects of intelligent causes, it seeks to challenge naturalistic evolution theories, and it seeks to comprehend the workings of the Divine. More and more scientists are breaking away from mainstream naturalistic science and are joining the IDM, for of a number of reasons from religious to scientific.
To answer the "evolution is a theory, not a fact" question:
We first have to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution. Pretty much every living 'example' used to teach evolution - the London moths, Darwin's finches and turtles - is an example of microevolution; changes to individuals within a species to adapt to a changing environment. Two physically different individuals in these examples could procreate and yield a viable, fertile offspring. At the most basic level, that is the definition of a species. We see microevolution all the time.
Now, macroevolution - the transformation of one species to another species - is a lot harder to make stick. As I mentioned before, almost no living examples have undergone a definite change in speciation. It is for all intents and purposes impossible to observe macroevolution in an empirical sense, because even if we have strong fossil evidence for an evolutionary link between two species in the distant past, we don't have the genetic material needed to establish whether definite speciation has taken place. The best we can do is make an educated guess and build to a conjecture based on what limited evidence we have. That doesn't prove or disprove anything - in fact, it makes either eventuality impossible for current science.
The definition of empirical science is science that concerns itself with information on the physical universe that can be gathered through the five senses and through methods we have created. Most textbooks will establish that for a hypothesis, theory, or conjecture to be workable within the realm of empirical science, it has to be observable, it has to be repeated or repeatable in an experimental setting, and it has to be mathematically quantifiable. Quite obviously, both creationism and macroevolution cannot be subjected to such standards. That's what makes this such a sticky debate.
I guess the trouble I have with Intelligent Design is that it seems to be Creationism Light with the goal of getting something into schools to go up against Evolution. This isn't about science but about protecting somebody's literal interpretation of the Bible. If it is a better theory supported by stronger evidence that is another thing. So Darwin's theory has a huge fossil record supporting evolution. What does Intelligent Design have?
Depending on who you ask... everything that exists.
People have tried to disprove the Bible for years and what their finding is it's all true. The more scientists try to disprove it, the more their finding that supports what's written in it.
But was Evolution Theory meant to disprove the Bible? Isn't it just science doing what science does? Asking questions then trying to answer them.
Out of curiousity how far do you guys take the Bible literally. Is the Earth round or flat, is it millions of years old or thousands & so on?
The question of whether the Earth's round or flat was never in the Bible. That was a human theory disproved by Christopher Columbus.
If you seriously want us to answer your questions, then try asking legitmate questions that are in the Bible, not just random questions that have nothing to do with it.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Depending on who you ask... everything that exists.
The problem is that it depends on who you ask.
The problem is that it's fucked.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
People have tried to disprove the Bible for years and what their finding is it's all true. The more scientists try to disprove it, the more their finding that supports what's written in it.
The idea that scientists are trying to disprove the Bible is false. If their findings go against what is found in the Bible, they do. If their findings support what is in the Bible, they do. They are simply searching for the truth, and part of that endeavor requires the separation of fact from fiction without bias.
The problem is that though many parts of the Bible hold true through evidence, there is scientific evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of the Genesis story.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
The question of whether the Earth's round or flat was never in the Bible. That was a human theory disproved by Christopher Columbus.
If you seriously want us to answer your questions, then try asking legitmate questions that are in the Bible, not just random questions that have nothing to do with it.
I thought I was. This web sight describes a spectrum of creationist beliefs. The Flat Earthers being the most extreme who take a phrase about the 4 corners of the earth in the Bible as being literal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
Not everyone who claims to believe what's in the Bible can give you a straight answer as to what it actually means. That's what happens when people don't investigate it for themselves.
Isaiah 40:22
Quote:
There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth...
nobody ever mentions that scripture though. everybody always quotes Isaiah 11:12 (the corners of the earth one). And I read somewhere that the word that was translated into "corners" could literally be translated as "wings". Would that mean that in ancient times they thought the earth was square and flew on wings? Or could it be they were just using a phrase.
Ever hear of a metaphore? Think people like Shakespere were the first ones to use them?
There are plenty of instnces in the Bible were stories were told to make you think, illustraste something but not nessacrily to be taken litterally, like the 4 corners of the Earth thing.
Or the story of creation?
Why do you have to pick a fight? Do you have nothing better to do than to troll around? We've already answered that question, and yet you don't waste any time to take what I said and purposely use it to suit your own needs.
Quote:
Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:
Batwoman said:
The question of whether the Earth's round or flat was never in the Bible. That was a human theory disproved by Christopher Columbus.
If you seriously want us to answer your questions, then try asking legitmate questions that are in the Bible, not just random questions that have nothing to do with it.
I thought I was. This web sight describes a spectrum of creationist beliefs. The Flat Earthers being the most extreme who take a phrase about the 4 corners of the earth in the Bible as being literal.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wic.html
I love that a website puts the flat eart society on the top of the list of creationisnts. I'm sure there ARE fives of people arround the world who take the Bible litterally. These people would be comprable to members of secular society who believe that the sun revolves arround a flat Earth because the weather man tells him so. That's right, he does. Many meteoroogists tell people each week what time the sun RISES and then what time it SETS! I mean c'mon these guys are proffessionals, havenst they heard of the copernican revolution? sheesh! seriously though this is what is called phenominallogical language wich refers to things the way they appear rather than the way they are it was common then, it's common now.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
Nope, you can, but while not willing to concede the point, I don't think that's a debate best served on a message board. I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class. I'll just say that while I do believe the Genesis account to be accurate, I don't think it's fundemental in an understanding of the gospel...... perhaps when this thread dies down we can start one on that (the gospel, not Genesis)
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Why do you have to pick a fight? Do you have nothing better to do than to troll around? We've already answered that question, and yet you don't waste any time to take what I said and purposely use it to suit your own needs.
You're right, I used what you said to suit my needs because it brought up a very interesting point.
I am not, however, picking a fight. If you don't want to discuss it, don't.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class.
Others aren't, which is really what this debate is about.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class.
Others aren't, which is really what this debate is about.
OK, quick show of hands people! Who thinks that the Genisis account should be taught in PUBLIC SCIENCE classes rather than just intellegent design?
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more. Kids should be able to get both sides of the fence and left to decide for themselves.
Also, though I can't speak for her, Batwoman appears to believe in Creationism over the Theory of Evolution.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, quick show of hands people! Who thinks that the Genisis account should be taught in PUBLIC SCIENCE classes rather than just intellegent design?
No. Should not.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Nope, you can, but while not willing to concede the point...I'll just say that while I do believe the Genesis account to be accurate, I don't think it's fundemental in an understanding of the gospel...... perhaps when this thread dies down we can start one on that (the gospel, not Genesis)
Do you believe it's accurate and complete? IOW, if it's not mentioned in Genesis, it didn't happen?
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more. Kids should be able to get both sides of the fence and left to decide for themselves.
Also, though I can't speak for her, Batwoman appears to believe in Creationism over the Theory of Evolution.
I believe in Creationism over Evolution too, but I think in the public schoolls the debate should remain between Intellegent Design Theory and Evolutionary Theory.
Hey, Jim, I'm not sure exactly what your asking, but I do believe that no portion of the Bible is "complete". There is alot of history that is missing (as well it should be, if anyone should hope to read it), but I do believe it's sufficiant. If that isn't an answer to your question, please elaborate.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
OK, quick show of hands people! Who thinks that the Genisis account should be taught in PUBLIC SCIENCE classes rather than just intellegent design?
No. Should not.
I meant on my side of the isle
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I believe in Creationism over Evolution too, but I think in the public schoolls the debate should remain between Intellegent Design Theory and Evolutionary Theory.
Okay, scratch out Batwoman from that list of two, unless she says otherwise.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I believe in Creationism over Evolution too, but I think in the public schoolls the debate should remain between Intellegent Design Theory and Evolutionary Theory.
OK. What I've never understood is why people can't believe in both. Why can't an intelligent being have put into motion micro- and macroevolutionary processes? Does a Creationist viewpoint automatically deem invalid an Evolutionary Theory viewpoint?
Quote:
Hey, Jim, I'm not sure exactly what your asking, but I do believe that no portion of the Bible is "complete". There is alot of history that is missing (as well it should be, if anyone should hope to read it), but I do believe it's sufficiant. If that isn't an answer to your question, please elaborate.
I have seen some hardcore Christians argue that the Bible's Genesis Story is complete and accurate. If it's not spelled out in those passages, it didn't happen. Like dinosaurs. They're not mentioned, so they never happened. Fossil evidence is just argued for by humans who want to denounced and deny God. Or the Noah story, that Noah IN FACT took two of every species of animal onto the Arc.
There's no simple answer as to the exact processes that put everything here, IMO. We can poke around all we want, but I seriously doubt we'd be able to find out just how God chose to put everything together in the foreseeable future.
I've never been a fan of 'pure' science, personally. With all the money being dumped into it, I feel scientific research should concentrate more on the application of what we already know to develop technologies and solutions that improve our daily lives and can be used to improve the quality of life for people in impoverished and technologically underdeveloped parts of the world. You know, make things cheaper, easier to make, easier to distribute, stuff like that.
Obviously, we need to keep doing some of this sort of poking around - think how many technologies in our everyday lives today were just theoretical fifty years ago. But I think a lot of time, effort, and money is being wasted on too many dead ends in science as it is, and if we concentrate too much on this debate as to how we got here, we'll just walk ourselves into that many more dead ends. The possibilities for scientific discovery may seem limitless, but some things are a lot easier to get to than others, and they're escaping our notice at the moment because we can't seem to be able to prioritize.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
OK. What I've never understood is why people can't believe in both. Why can't an intelligent being have put into motion micro- and macroevolutionary processes? Does a Creationist viewpoint automatically deem invalid an Evolutionary Theory viewpoint?
Precisely my point.
Very good. I approve.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
I have seen some hardcore Christians argue that the Bible's Genesis Story is complete and accurate. If it's not spelled out in those passages, it didn't happen. Like dinosaurs. They're not mentioned, so they never happened. Fossil evidence is just argued for by humans who want to denounced and deny God. Or the Noah story, that Noah IN FACT took two of every species of animal onto the Arc.
Literalists, I believe is the term.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I've never been a fan of 'pure' science, personally. With all the money being dumped into it, I feel scientific research should concentrate more on the application of what we already know to develop technologies and solutions that improve our daily lives and can be used to improve the quality of life for people in impoverished and technologically underdeveloped parts of the world. You know, make things cheaper, easier to make, easier to distribute, stuff like that.
Obviously, we need to keep doing some of this sort of poking around - think how many technologies in our everyday lives today were just theoretical fifty years ago. But I think a lot of time, effort, and money is being wasted on too many dead ends in science as it is, and if we concentrate too much on this debate as to how we got here, we'll just walk ourselves into that many more dead ends. The possibilities for scientific discovery may seem limitless, but some things are a lot easier to get to than others, and they're escaping our notice at the moment because we can't seem to be able to prioritize.
Could you explain what you think those dead ends are?
My personal belief, by the way, is that there are no dead ends. There are only things we do not yet understand.
Wednesday: T Y for the term.
Dead ends is probably a bit excessive. I'm mainly referring to lines of research that don't appear to promise any real-world returns in the near future. For example, why are we searching the skies for Earthlike planets if we generally agree that it'd be impossible to get to any of them in our lifetime? Or why are we looking for remnants of a supposed 'Big Bang' when even its proponents agree that we are separated from it by billions of years? Why do we poke around looking for things that don't impact us?
It's not that they're not important. That's not what I'm saying. It's just that we have more imminent concerns right now. Like the fact that a sizable percentage of the people on this planet don't have access to clean water and regular medical care. I look at how much effort we're sinking into proving our own personal versions of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, in particular, and I look at how much effort we're sinking into those more imminent things, and I wonder about our priorities.
I've always had more of an engineer's perspective than a scientist's perspective, I think. I like to concentrate on application rather than theory when it comes to scientific research. But there's plenty of room for both.
Well...
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
For example, why are we searching the skies for Earthlike planets if we generally agree that it'd be impossible to get to any of them in our lifetime?
I believe we do so in search of intelligent life on other planets. We're working under the assumption that good ol' water is one of the basic requirements for life. If we do, somehow, make contact with someone who can reach us, they will almost undoubtedly bring with them knowledge that we don't have.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
Or why are we looking for remnants of a supposed 'Big Bang' when even its proponents agree that we are separated from it by billions of years?
For the same reason people read Genesis.
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
It's just that we have more imminent concerns right now. Like the fact that a sizable percentage of the people on this planet don't have access to clean water and regular medical care. I look at how much effort we're sinking into proving our own personal versions of the origin of the universe and life on Earth, in particular, and I look at how much effort we're sinking into those more imminent things, and I wonder about our priorities.
I agree with you that there are important concerns that go maladressed, but I don't think we allocate more resources to scientific endeavors. I can't back that up, though, and if you know some numbers that prove otherwise...
Quote:
Captain Sammitch said:
I've always had more of an engineer's perspective than a scientist's perspective, I think. I like to concentrate on application rather than theory when it comes to scientific research. But there's plenty of room for both.
Very good. I approve.
Quote:
OK. What I've never understood is why people can't believe in both. Why can't an intelligent being have put into motion micro- and macroevolutionary processes? Does a Creationist viewpoint automatically deem invalid an Evolutionary Theory viewpoint?
An intellegent being, God, COULD have put into motion the evolutionary processes, I just don't believe He did.
Quote:
I have seen some hardcore Christians argue that the Bible's Genesis Story is complete and accurate. If it's not spelled out in those passages, it didn't happen. Like dinosaurs. They're not mentioned, so they never happened. Fossil evidence is just argued for by humans who want to denounced and deny God. Or the Noah story, that Noah IN FACT took two of every species of animal onto the Arc.
Not to correct Wednesday, but the term is Wooden-Literalist. I am what would be called a literallist meaning that instead of taking the Bible to an extreme literal point as you mentioned. I view it as any liturature in that there are historical narritives poetic narratives, didactic narratives, even fictional stories, like the parrables of Jesus, but I attemt not to confuse them for one an other. So a wooden literalist would say that there weere no Dinasaurs because the Bible doesn't mention them, I would say that there's no reason to deny the evidence that they clearly existed and be perfectly happy, because the scriptures don't rule them out.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
An intellegent being, God, COULD have put into motion the evolutionary processes, I just don't believe He did.
A. Who did, then?
B. Or are there no evolutionary processes?
C. Then what do you make of the evolutionary evidence that is available?
Quote:
A. Who did, then?
B. Or are there no evolutionary processes?
C. Then what do you make of the evolutionary evidence that is available?
A & B: I was a little brief and meant only macro interspeciese evolution.
C: There is no conclusive evidence of Macro-evolution.
Now, I gotta go play Halo 2, be back later.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
PrincessElisa said:
I think its important to teach both views! The school's are already teaching evolution which is still a theory and not a fact. I'm in favor of Creationism...the sciences sure point towards it more. Kids should be able to get both sides of the fence and left to decide for themselves.
Also, though I can't speak for her, Batwoman appears to believe in Creationism over the Theory of Evolution.
Key words there, why don't you answer the question for yourself and let others do the same. I never asked you to post for me, nor do you know what I think of evolution vs creation.
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I believe in Creationism over Evolution too, but I think in the public schoolls the debate should remain between Intellegent Design Theory and Evolutionary Theory.
Okay, scratch out Batwoman from that list of two, unless she says otherwise.
See my post above this.
Quote:
Batwoman said:
Key words there, why don't you answer the question for yourself and let others do the same. I never asked you to post for me, nor do you know what I think of evolution vs creation.
If you read my post again, Batwoman, I'm sure you'll see that I made sure it was clear I wasn't answering for you. In fact, the words you bolded are the exact words that support that fact.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
I love that a website puts the flat eart society on the top of the list of creationisnts....
The website was talking about a range of beliefs that exist among creationists. The site just started with the most extreme one & worked it way down to more moderate ones.
Quote:
If you read my post again, Batwoman, I'm sure you'll see that I made sure it was clear I wasn't answering for you. In fact, the words you bolded are the exact words that support that fact.
I know, but my point was, don't answer for someone even like that, if you don't kow the answer, especially when you don't know the answer and know what the person will say/feel.
You don't know what I believe and what I don't and I don't appreciate you're answering for me, because in a sense that's what you were doing by throwing my name in there and saying I'd believe in that, then saying I wouldn't in the very next post. I may not be posting to this thread as much as you and some others because I have a life which demands more of my time than I have to waste here or care to for that matter.
I'm gonna let you go now, kay?
Quote:
Batwoman said:
I may not be posting to this thread as much as you and some others because I have a life which demands more of my time than I have to waste here or care to for that matter.
Why bother posting here at all, then? I mean, it seems to me by using the words "I have a life" and "waste" here, you've insinuated the rest of us don't have lives and are wasting time.
You could just as easily have said, "Hey, I've been really busy" and "I don't have a lot of time to spend posting here right now." Far friendlier than what you did post.
Not good form, really, on your part, and it pretty much insures I won't bother reading what you have to say when you do take time out of your busy life to waste time posting something here.
I didn't say that because I'm sick and tired of saying it. I feel like I've been saying it constantly every where I post.
I'm tired of playing nice and feeling like I can't speak my mind for fear of hurting somoene's feelings.
So you're not going to read my posts because of the way I worded that, my world wont come to an end as a result, I'll live.
dut dut dut and another thread bites the dust.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
Or the story of creation?
nope.
And here we begin the classic argument about the apocryphal (or not) nature of the Genesis Story.
Nope, you can, but while not willing to concede the point, I don't think that's a debate best served on a message board. I also don't think it's relevent for THIS discussion since I am willing to concede that it shouldn't be taught in science class. I'll just say that while I do believe the Genesis account to be accurate, I don't think it's fundemental in an understanding of the gospel...... perhaps when this thread dies down we can start one on that (the gospel, not Genesis)
I'm game, but my brain is too Halo fried to start one without a prompt. So ask me a question and I'll start a thread to answer it.
And since I'm into all CS Lewis, "Roughly two views have been held. First there is a materialist view. People who take that view think that matter and space just happen to exist, and always have existed but nobody knows why; and that the matter, behaving in certain fixed ways, has just happened, by a sort of fluke, to produce creatures like ourselves who are able to think. By one chance ina thousand something hit our sun and made it produce the plaents; and by another thousandth chance the chemicals necessary for life, and the right temperature, occured one one of those planets, and thus the matter on earth came alive, and then, by a very long series of chances, the living creatures developed into thinks like us.
The other view is the religious view. According to it, what is behind the universe is more like a mind that it is like anything else we know. That is to say it is conscious, and has purposes, and prefers one thing to another. And on this view it made the universe, partly for purposes we do not know, but partly to produce creatures like itself-capable to the extent of having minds."
I thought that was cool.
You realize that the world is like the Matrix? Just replace the 1s and 0s with quarks and electrons, and the computer programmer with God.
thats a cool thought pw.....never thought of it that way :P
You should have heard our Matrix series (at church). Don't know if it's still up on the web or not, but it was pretty cool. They even showed a short piece of the movie each week and referred to the movie. I laugh when I think about what the one senior pastor did to freak out the other one the first service of the first week of it. hehehe Just wish I could have been there to see the other one freak out thinking he had to come up with a sermon in about 5 minutes. LOL
The Matrix is a sci-fi telling of teh Gnostic gospel.
After the first one, the Matrix sucked poop from a vacuum.
Church would be cooler in bullet-time.
extend church by 35t? HELL no! It's long and boring enough already! Collumbine would have been less shocking in bullet time though.
Whaddaya care? You don't go anyway.
Do ya?
I totally meant that the priests and preachers would be doing kung-fu to crescendos of trumpets and brass sections.
If you drop your Communion wafer in bullet-time you have at least three chances to grab it before it hits the carpet.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Whaddaya care? You don't go anyway.
Do ya?
I went every Sunday for eighteen years straight. I know of what I talketh.
....heck, I've been to Christian, Catholic, Baptist, Lutherine and, yes, even a Mormon Temple a couple times. My best friend was mormon.
Quote:
Fused said:
Church would be cooler in bullet-time.
Are you kidding? Church is long enough as it is!
Yeah, but the bullets would liven it up.
AP
Breaking News
Bush: Intelligent Design Should Be TaughtTuesday, August 2, 2005
WASHINGTON, (AP) --President Bush said Monday he believes schools should discuss "intelligent design" alongside evolution when teaching students about the creation of life.
During a round-table interview with reporters from five Texas newspapers, Bush declined to go into detail on his personal views of the origin of life. But he said students should learn about both theories, Knight Ridder Newspapers reported.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
The theory of intelligent design says life on earth is too complex to have developed through evolution, implying that a higher power must have had a hand in creation.
Christian conservatives — a substantial part of Bush's voting base — have been pushing for the teaching of intelligent design in public schools. Scientists have rejected the theory as an attempt to force religion into science education.
On other topics during the group interview, the president:
_Refused to discuss the investigation into whether political aide Karl Rove or any other White House official leaked a CIA officer's identity, but he stood behind Rove. "Karl's got my complete confidence. He's a valuable member of my team," Bush said.
_Said he did not ask Supreme Court nominee John Roberts about his views on Roe v. Wade, the 1973 decision that legalized abortion.
_Said he hopes to work with Congress to pass an immigration reform bill this fall, including provisions for guest workers and enhanced security along the U.S.-Mexico border.
Bush spoke with reporters from the San Antonio Express-News, the Houston Chronicle, The Dallas Morning News, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram and The Austin American-Statesman.
"I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said. "You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes."
Those words just don't sound right coming from him. How far does he extend that idea outside of something that appeases a certain block of voters?
Exactly when, for example, has Bush tried to block teaching evolution in public schools?
Yeah, he'd never do that...so very sad.
By your response, I can only assume you are completely unable to find any evidence that Bush has attempted to censor the teaching of evolution and are forced to fall back on sarcasm.
He's an evangelical Christian--he'd never pass up an opportunity to quietly cross the divide between Church and State. When someone clearly violates the oath they took with no consequences to face, sarcasm, sir, is my only friend...
Exactly how has Bush "clearly violated" his oath of office in this area? By rendering an opinion?
As for your other comment, I remember reading about how, when John Kennedy was first running/first elected president, people would say things about how Kennedy, as a Catholic, would probably quietly cross the divide between Church and State. Those types of comments, regardless of a particular religion, were bigoted then and they are bigoted now.
Considering your political leanings, I thought you would appreciate a bigoted view...
Save the hyperbole for someone else.
Religion is a personal--not a social choice--and as such, religious choices should not encroach upon social choices. Faith-based charities, while I applaud their efforts to assist those in need, have used it as a recruiting tool in both mine and other peoples' experiences. Using one's political power to advocate what is clearly a religious position and suggesting it be placed into a situtation it doesn't belong (i.e. keep religion out of schools) is a clear violation of his oath to uphold the Constitution.
Those who claim there is a "secular Jihad" going on in America should either: move to a non-secular country or transform America into a transparent theocratic government--don't waffle. However, the aforementioned transformation would mean the end of America.
Also, I almost spilt my coffee when you mentioned Kennedy! At no time during Kennedy's tenure as President did he approach mixing religion and politics in the way that Bush has done. Thanks for the smile.
Quote:
the G-man said:
By your response, I can only assume you are completely unable to find any evidence that Bush has attempted to censor the teaching of evolution and are forced to fall back on sarcasm.
I was thinking more along the lines of "Heather & her two mommys" type of different. The President may not be attempting to censor teaching evolution but I'm sure some communities will censor themselves by focusing more on intelligent design than evolution. Not because it's a different idea but because it's a safe one that doesn't conflict with their religous views. Just like the good old days. As an aside to anyone, does intelligent design offer anything beyond a list of improbabilities? Where is the science to intelligent design?
theory, to date you have still failed to show even one incident where Bush "quietly crossed the divide between Church and State" by advocating censorship or otherwise.
Furthermore, according to
press reports on the intelligent design issue, Bush "also said he believes the matter should be decided by local school boards, not by a federal government mandate."
If he has come right out and said he is against a federal mandate on this, how can you seriously accuse him of crossing a line or violating his oath of office?
Reuters
Top News Article
Leading Republican differs with Bush on evolutionThu Aug 4, 2005 3:17 PM ET
By Jon Hurdle
PHILADELPHIA (Reuters) - A leading Republican senator allied with the religious right differed on Thursday with President Bush's support for teaching an alternative to the theory of evolution known as "intelligent design."
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
Bush told reporters from Texas on Monday that "both sides" in the debate over intelligent design and evolution should be taught in schools "so people can understand what the debate is about."
"I think I would probably tailor that a little more than what the president has suggested," Santorum, the third-ranking Republican member of the U.S. Senate, told National Public Radio. "I'm not comfortable with intelligent design being taught in the science classroom."
Evangelical Christians have launched campaigns in at least 18 states to make public schools teach intelligent design alongside Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
Proponents of intelligent design argue that nature is so complex that it could not have occurred by random natural selection, as held by Darwin's 1859 theory of evolution, and so must be the work of an unnamed "intelligent cause."
Santorum is the third-ranking member of the U.S. Senate and has championed causes of the religious right including opposition to gay marriage and abortion.
He is expected to face a stiff challenge from Democrat Bob Casey in his quest for re-election next year in Pennsylvania, a major battleground state in recent presidential elections.
The controversy over intelligent design is a hot topic in Pennsylvania, where the Dover Area School District in south central Pennsylvania has included the theory in its biology curriculum.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sued to block the policy, calling it a violation of the constitutional separation of church and state.
Most Americans believe that God created human beings or guided the process of evolution, according to a CBS poll last November. Two-thirds said they wanted creationism taught alongside evolution in schools.
SCIENCE CURRICULUM
Critics, including many science teachers, say intelligent design cannot be scientifically tested and has no place in a science curriculum.
Santorum sided in part with intelligent-design proponents in saying that there were gaps in the theory of evolution.
"What we should be teaching are the problems and holes -- and I think there are legitimate problems and holes -- in the theory of evolution. What we need to do is to present those fairly, from a scientific point of view," he said in the interview.
"As far as intelligent design is concerned, I really don't believe it has risen to the level of a scientific theory at this point that we would want to teach it alongside of evolution."
Santorum had proposed an unsuccessful measure in 2001 that would have required discussing the "controversy" of evolution when the theory is taught in classes.
Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, was quoted in The New York Times this week as saying intelligent design was not a scientific concept, and that Bush's remarks should be interpreted to mean he thinks the concept should be taught as part of the "social context" in science classes.
Quote:
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
I wonder how many people who've actually said this know exactly what makes evolution "scientifically credible" in the first place. I'm not saying he can't agree with that field of study's "findings". But, like most, he prolly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Republican Sen. Rick Santorum, a possible 2008 presidential contender who faces a tough re-election fight next year in Pennsylvania, said intelligent design, which is backed by many religious conservatives, lacked scientific credibility and should not be taught in science classes.
I wonder how many people who've actually said this know exactly what makes evolution "scientifically credible" in the first place. I'm not saying he can't agree with that field of study's "findings". But, like most, he prolly doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
Maybe things have changed since I went to high school, but biology was not a requirement. It was a college prep class. It prepared you for further study at a college or university. I doubt you'll find a lot of controversy in higher ed about evolution in the science departments. Can any of you Christian Soldiers name a major university that offers a degree in biology based on intelligent design? By major, I mean research institutes like Stanford, University of California, USC (a Methodist school), the Ivys, Boston, UNC etc..
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
Quote:
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
That's true. On the other hand, if they let in people who majored in "comparative lit" and "Womyn's studies," they should probably not bitch about "creation based biology."
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Maybe things have changed since I went to high school, but biology was not a requirement. It was a college prep class. It prepared you for further study at a college or university. I doubt you'll find a lot of controversy in higher ed about evolution in the science departments. Can any of you Christian Soldiers name a major university that offers a degree in biology based on intelligent design? By major, I mean research institutes like Stanford, University of California, USC (a Methodist school), the Ivys, Boston, UNC etc..
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
What does this have to do with people, making assertions about the "truth" of evolution over the "fallacy" of creationism, not knowing what the hell they're talking about?
Make it an elective for all I care, but the point is that, with the current state of the theory of evolution, Intelligent Design has just as much right to be taught. And furthermore: With the fact that there's no confirmable ties between legitimate biology and the theory of evolution, there's no merit to consort it with the use of the Biology courses.
The New York Times reports:
A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. . . .
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
Next thing you know, they'll want schools to teach that gravity is just the Devil sucking.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Maybe things have changed since I went to high school, but biology was not a requirement. It was a college prep class. It prepared you for further study at a college or university. I doubt you'll find a lot of controversy in higher ed about evolution in the science departments. Can any of you Christian Soldiers name a major university that offers a degree in biology based on intelligent design? By major, I mean research institutes like Stanford, University of California, USC (a Methodist school), the Ivys, Boston, UNC etc..
Do you think a degree in creation based biology is going to get you that job at Genentech, Chiron or Schering? How many med schools would consider it equivalent training?
What does this have to do with people, making assertions about the "truth" of evolution over the "fallacy" of creationism, not knowing what the hell they're talking about?
Make it an elective for all I care, but the point is that, with the current state of the theory of evolution, Intelligent Design has just as much right to be taught. And furthermore: With the fact that there's no confirmable ties between legitimate biology and the theory of evolution, there's no merit to consort it with the use of the Biology courses.
Feel free to dispute my post any time rather than just post a bunch of emoticons.
Quote:
the G-man said:
The New York Times reports:
A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. . . .
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
Cool. Let's start teaching things when the polls speak for them and stop when the polls speak against.
I'm curious - has anyone actually looked at what the Bible says about creation recently? If you read it closely and with an analytical eye, which is always fun to do, all sorts of fascinating questions come to mind.
http://www.bible.ort.org/books/torahd5.a...1&portion=1Quote:
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Does this beginning come before the seven days of creation?
Quote:
1:2 The earth was without form and empty, with darkness on the face of the depths, but God's spirit moved on the water's surface.
Following up on what I said before - before the seven days of creation, it looks like something exists. Nowhere in the seven days does it say that God created the world itself out of nothing.
The question is, how much of the world already existed before the seven days of creation?
Quote:
1:3 God said, 'There shall be light,' and light came into existence.
1:4 God saw that the light was good, and God divided between the light and the darkness.
1:5 God named the light 'Day,' and the darkness He named 'Night.' It was evening and it was morning, one day.
FYI: Based on Hebrew translation, Light was created on one day, but it's not the "first" day. The Hebrew term used in the Bible is "yom echad." If the Bible was referring to the first day, it would have said "yom rishon."
Skipping ahead a few verses (after the separation of heaven and earth, the creation of plant life, the sun, moon, and stars...)
Quote:
1:20 God said, 'The water shall teem with swarms of living creatures. Flying creatures shall fly over the land, on the face of the heavenly sky.'
1:21 God [thus] created the great sea monsters, along with every particular species of living thing that crawls, with which the waters teem, and every particular species of winged flying creature. God saw that it was good.
1:22 God blessed them, saying, 'Be fruitful and become many, and fill the waters of the seas. Let the flying creatures multiply on the land.'
1:23 It was evening and it was morning, a fifth day.
1:24 God said, 'The earth shall bring forth particular species of living creatures, particular species of livestock, land animals, and beasts of the earth.' It happened.
1:25 God [thus] made particular species of beasts of the earth, particular species of livestock, and particular species of animals that walk the land. God saw that it was good.
Isn't it interesting how fish and birds were created before the rest of the animals?
What is my point in posting all this, you may ask?
First of all, for those who may not be familiar with the Bible (or who need their memories refreshed), it may be useful to see what it actually says.
Second, I like looking at texts and analyzing it for its own sake. I spent some time in France during the Middle Ages at a yeshiva, and it's fascinating the way scholars analyze and interpret their sacred texts.
Third, perhaps the questions I've raised might give you all something to ponder and will contribute to the discussion.
Quote:
Quote:
Methos said:
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Does this beginning come before the seven days of creation?
That is the 7 days of creation. It's a summary before a full explanation. People do it all the time.
Did you read the entire post, or did you stop after that one point? If you had continued reading, you'd see that I address this point.
Just in case, let's see what I can clear up here.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Quote:
Methos said:
1:1 In the beginning God created heaven and earth.
Does this beginning come before the seven days of creation?
That is the 7 days of creation. It's a summary before a full explanation.
Is it?
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created, then it gets into details about the seven days of creation. But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere. With the second and third days, when the sky and dry land is formed, the way it's worded suggests that something already existed and God was rearranging what he already created rather than creating from scratch for these two days of creation.
Let's look at the text again and see what it says (so that I can refresh my own memory as well).
Quote:
1:6 God said, 'There shall be a sky in the middle of the water, and it shall divide between water and water.'
1:7 God [thus] made the sky, and it separated the water below the sky from the water above the sky. It remained that way.
1:8 God named the sky 'Heaven.' It was evening and it was morning, a second day.
1:9 God said, 'The waters under the heaven shall be gathered to one place, and dry land shall be seen.' It happened.
1:10 God named the dry land 'Earth,' and the gatherings of water, He named 'Seas.' God saw that it was good.
Again, in the case of dry land - no something from nothing. It's rearranging what already exists. Dry land already existed - it just was inaccessible because it was covered up by water. So it may have been created before the seven days.
Your logic seems to fit when talking about the heavens, but not the earth.
(And if you want to get knee-deep in Jewish mysticism, I've heard the first line described as God coming up with the idea for the heavens and the earth and the days of creation, but I consider that to be really pushing it.)
Quote:
PenWing said:
To chime in for a minute...
The Theory of Evolution is...interesting. I think it is valid to question whether this is a scientific theory or not. I think it's more of a leap of faith to say that humans evolved from apes. There is no question we are related. But, I think we evolved along similar evolutionary lines. We have found so many forms of man preHomoSapien. I don't think we can deny that we weren't always HomoSapiens.
Actually, the Theory of Evolution doesn't state that man came from apes. That's a misconception.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Wednesday said:
How does the theory of intelligent design contradict the theory of evolution? This is a serious question since I'm not prive to the difference between "intelligent design" and Creationism.
From Terestrial Soup:
Creationism is the belief that the Biblical account of Creation in the book of Genesis accurately depicts the process God used to make the world and all that is in it.
The Intelligent Design Movement is an intellectual, scientific, and theological alternative to the naturalistic perspective pervading the bulk of western thought today. The Intelligent Design Movement (IDM) consists of three main branches: it seeks to be a scientific investigation into the effects of intelligent causes, it seeks to challenge naturalistic evolution theories, and it seeks to comprehend the workings of the Divine. More and more scientists are breaking away from mainstream naturalistic science and are joining the IDM, for of a number of reasons from religious to scientific.
I know this was a long time ago, but it didn't really answer my question.
Ah, here's another interesting tidbit.
Quote:
1:14 God said, 'There shall be lights in the heavenly sky to divide between day and night. They shall serve as omens [and define] festivals, days and years.
The sun, moon, and stars weren't created until the fourth day of creation, and it is when they are created that years and days and all that can be counted. So how were years and days and time in general kept track of before the creation of the sun and moon?
Quote:
Pariah said:
Feel free to dispute my post any time rather than just post a bunch of emoticons.
Feel free to offer evidence instead of your bigoted opinion.
Quote:
Methos said:
Ah, here's another interesting tidbit.
Quote:
1:14 God said, 'There shall be lights in the heavenly sky to divide between day and night. They shall serve as omens [and define] festivals, days and years.
The sun, moon, and stars weren't created until the fourth day of creation, and it is when they are created that years and days and all that can be counted. So how were years and days and time in general kept track of before the creation of the sun and moon?
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology. You site specific Hebrew terms that you claim mean "A" when I've heard other Hebrew scholors claim they mean "B". That's an entirely different debate. I don't think that belongs in public scool discoures any more than the soteriological debate between protistants and Catholics. All that should be discussed is the scientiffic merits of competeing theories.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology.
I'm not posting this stuff to prove or disprove anything regarding Creationism or evolution or anything like that. I'm not interested in debating that topic.
I'm merely providing information and insights that may be interesting or of use to people who are debating, while at the same time posing challenges to the way some people (not anyone in particular) interpret the Bible.
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology.
I'm not posting this stuff to prove or disprove anything regarding Creationism or evolution or anything like that. I'm not interested in debating that topic.
I'm merely providing information and insights that may be interesting or of use to people who are debating, while at the same time posing challenges to the way some people (not anyone in particular) interpret the Bible.
All valuble topics. I just think they confuse the issue as to what should be taught in schools. That's all I'm saying. Maybbe they could use a thread of thier own.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
In regards to all you're saying. I DON'T think the theology of Biblical Creation should be taught in public schools that should be a debate in theology.
I'm not posting this stuff to prove or disprove anything regarding Creationism or evolution or anything like that. I'm not interested in debating that topic.
I'm merely providing information and insights that may be interesting or of use to people who are debating, while at the same time posing challenges to the way some people (not anyone in particular) interpret the Bible.
All valuble topics. I just think they confuse the issue as to what should be taught in schools. That's all I'm saying. Maybbe they could use a thread of thier own.
You mean like a "do people interpret the Bible correctly" thread?
Yeah, that'd be a friendly thread...
Oh, I'm sure. Especially with all the friendly, rational, careful thinkers we have around here (snicker).
It should be quite...entertaining, to say the least.
Quote:
the G-man said:
The New York Times reports:
A poll released yesterday found that nearly two-thirds of Americans say that creationism should be taught alongside evolution in public schools
In all, 64 percent said they were open to the idea of teaching creationism in addition to evolution, while 38 percent favored replacing evolution with creationism. . . .
John C. Green, a senior fellow at the Pew Forum, said he was surprised to see that teaching both evolution and creationism was favored not only by conservative Christians, but also by majorities of secular respondents, liberal Democrats and those who accept the theory of natural selection. Mr. Green called it a reflection of "American pragmatism."
"It's like they're saying, 'Some people see it this way, some see it that way, so just teach it all and let the kids figure it out.' It seems like a nice compromise, but it infuriates both the creationists and the scientists," said Mr. Green, who is also a professor at the University of Akron in Ohio.
The Popularity Fallacy. Just because many believe it, that doesn't make it true.
Quote:
Methos said:
Did you read the entire post, or did you stop after that one point? If you had continued reading, you'd see that I address this point.
Just in case, let's see what I can clear up here.
I read the entire post, but I can't tell what you're going on about if not trying to assert that God modified earth rather than created it.
Quote:
Methos said:
Is it?
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created, then it gets into details about the seven days of creation. But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere. With the second and third days, when the sky and dry land is formed, the way it's worded suggests that something already existed and God was rearranging what he already created rather than creating from scratch for these two days of creation.
You're all over the place here. First you conceed that the Bible says God created the world and then one sentence later you're trying to imply exactly the opposite by invoking, "something didn't come from nothing".
Using what the Bible doesn't say to try and make your case just isn't doesn't work.
Quote:
Again, in the case of dry land - no something from nothing. It's rearranging what already exists. Dry land already existed - it just was inaccessible because it was covered up by water. So it may have been created before the seven days.
Allow me to break this down: The waters were/are on earth. God created earth. Thus the waters were there when he created them and the land below.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Feel free to offer evidence instead of your bigoted opinion.
I've offered you ample evidence in many a difference form. You've simply chosen to ignore whatever I say, then insult me because your sore regarding the fact that I was able to point out your idiocy.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Did you read the entire post, or did you stop after that one point? If you had continued reading, you'd see that I address this point.
Just in case, let's see what I can clear up here.
I read the entire post, but I can't tell what you're going on about if not trying to assert that God modified earth rather than created it.
Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Quote:
Quote:
Methos said:
Is it?
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created, then it gets into details about the seven days of creation. But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere. With the second and third days, when the sky and dry land is formed, the way it's worded suggests that something already existed and God was rearranging what he already created rather than creating from scratch for these two days of creation.
You're all over the place here. First you conceed that the Bible says God created the world and then one sentence later you're trying to imply exactly the opposite by invoking, "something didn't come from nothing".
No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
Quote:
Using what the Bible doesn't say to try and make your case just isn't doesn't work.
That's not at all what I'm doing.
I think this same thing happened when we were having a different discussion regarding possible interpretations about what the Bible is saying. I'm not making any claims saying "this is what happened." I'm not making any case. I'm raising questions for discussion's own sake, and explaining how I came by those ideas.
If you don't mind my saying so, you seem to have a difficult time telling the difference between someone engaging in mere speculation and someone trying to make a claim. Just something to watch out for.
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
theory9 said:
Feel free to offer evidence instead of your bigoted opinion.
I've offered you ample evidence in many a difference form. You've simply chosen to ignore whatever I say, then insult me because your sore regarding the fact that I was able to point out your idiocy.
You even thinking I'm an idiot is akin to you getting laid: even if it ever happened, it would take a support group to make it happen. In other words, you've never done any such thing, my little penciltop troll. And you haven't "stated" your view yet on this thread, although a chimp could predict what it says.
Creationism requires the belief in God.
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
Quote:
Methos said:
Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
Or perhaps he created it and then went down to "separate the waters". According the very first sentence, that conclusion would be much more prudent.
Quote:
So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Uh.....No you're not. You're going at length to argue about it. You're pretty much past any point of "offering speculation".
Quote:
Methos said:
No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
You said:
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created,
But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere.
More directly adressing this, the Bible, in fact, does not say it came from nowhere, but that God created it and then went to it and rearranged everything.
It certianly wouldn't be a summary of a post explanation as I had asserted, but you were playing with separation of context too much for me to figure that out.
Quote:
That's not at all what I'm doing.
Yes it is. You're proclaiming that because the word "beginning" isn't used multiple times throughout the explanation of the seven days that the world prolly sat their in a disarrayed mess for a long time before God came to fix it up.
Quote:
theory9 said:
In other words, you've never done any such thing, my little penciltop troll. And you haven't "stated" your view yet on this thread, although a chimp could predict what it says.
O I C
So it has to be "on this thread" for you to be comfortable in your own security. It doesn't matter that I posted it numerous times in other threads.
I'll repost it for you though.
Quote:
theory9 said:
More thoughtful tidbits.
Pope John Paul II never said that Catholicism was in allignment with evolution. He said that it was in allignment with micro-evolution. A far patent from macro-evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists like to use this strawman that natural selection is empirical evidence towards macro-evolution's factual state--WRONG!!
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Creationism requires the belief in God.
Not necessarily the Christian God. It could be a bunch of alieans for all the name suggests.
Quote:
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Yes. However, that does not mean that evolution is a logical answer simply because its an alternative prospect.
Quote:
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
In the case of the Christian God, it is. And, abain, even if it does not require a belief in God, that does not mean it's true.
Quote:
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
No. It's not.
Quote:
BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
There is none. But I don't see why that should matter. Astrology was almost made a genuine science way back when and it's in the same category of evolution as total bullshit.
Simply because there's an entire field of study that surrounds a subject, that does not make it a genuinely helpful or even factual science. Like Theory, you seem to be of the mind that science creates facts, when it's simply supposed to discover them. Work on that.
Quote:
Pariah said:
So it has to be "on this thread" for you to be comfortable in your own security. It doesn't matter that I posted it numerous times in other threads.
I'll repost it for you though.
You owe the reader an executive summary and source citation. That's why The Goddess invented footnotes
Pope John Paul II never said that Catholicism was in allignment with evolution. He said that it was in allignment with micro-evolution. A far patent from macro-evolution. Unfortunately, evolutionists like to use this strawman that natural selection is empirical evidence towards macro-evolution's factual state--WRONG!!
You accidently hit on something germaine to the discussion, Pariah. While there is no dispute about evolution in biological science, Natural Selection is controversial (or it was when I took Marine Biology). That topic is debatable.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Creationism requires the belief in God.
The existance of God cannot be proven or disproven.
Not necessarily the Christian God. It could be a bunch of alieans for all the name suggests.
Evolution does not require the belief in God and is not hostile to his/her existance.
Evolution is the more rational of the 2 theories.
Yes. However, that does not mean that evolution is a logical answer simply because its an alternative prospect.
In the case of the Christian God, it is. And, abain, even if it does not require a belief in God, that does not mean it's true.
No. It's not.
The existance of life and the universe in its present form are both highly improbable. There are many things that we can explain by observation. God is not one of them. Any theory relying on god is less probable than one that does not. Neither theories is provable but evolution is a better bet.
Quote:
BTW, Pariah, I'm still waiting to hear the name of that major research institution that offer a degree of MS or better in Creation Science.
There is none. But I don't see why that should matter. Astrology was almost made a genuine science way back when and it's in the same category of evolution as total bullshit.
Simply because there's an entire field of study that surrounds a subject, that does not make it a genuinely helpful or even factual science. Like Theory, you seem to be of the mind that science creates facts, when it's simply supposed to discover them. Work on that.
The point is that in academia creation science lacks credibility. Using evolution as a foundation for study a great deal has been learned about the workings of living things. One of the benefits of this approach has been the development of cures for diseases that formerly devastated human population. Creation science is not associated with either of those.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
You owe the reader an executive summary and source citation. That's why The Goddess invented footnotes
You really don't want me to post it again cuz' you know it's just going to corner your ego. So as a last ditch effort, you pull this.
So, has the "goddess" exempted you from quoting sources for every assertion you make? Because I don't see that or a lecture to do so pointed at anyone you agree with.
Quote:
You accidently hit on something germaine to the discussion, Pariah. While there is no dispute about evolution in biological science, Natural Selection is controversial (or it was when I took Marine Biology). That topic is debatable.
Controversial or not, both the Church and evolutionists agree on it.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
The existance of life and the universe in its present form are both highly improbable. There are many things that we can explain by observation. God is not one of them. Any theory relying on god is less probable than one that does not. Neither theories is provable but evolution is a better bet.
Wrong. The universe is finitely infinite. Now as far as improbability goes, the idea that we can overcome this lack of probability would logically suggest that other alien races or life forms in general would be able to as well. Meaning that the probability is greater than you would suggest that there's an intelligence out there that could have shaped us. I, personally, do not believe it was as pedestrian an intelligence such as ours that created us (biological alien race). It is my belief that it was divine. However, the entire notion of Intelligent Design or Creationism doesn't revolve staunchly around the idea that God made us, but simply that there was a previous intelligent source.
Quote:
The point is that in academia creation science lacks credibility. Using evolution as a foundation for study a great deal has been learned about the workings of living things. One of the benefits of this approach has been the development of cures for diseases that formerly devastated human population. Creation science is not associated with either of those.
This gives the goal of evolution science absolutely no merit or sign of fruition. Its academic standing has nothing to do with the state of its logic. This your penchent for deception speaking up again.
Before anything, the main concept of Creationism isn't merely the definition of a Divine hand coming down and shaping the dwellers of the cosmos, although that is the Christian faith's synopsis, as a hardcore non-believer yourself you can still continue to believe it wasn't God that made us. But rather something with an intelligence.
Anyway...
The main evidence of evolution is essentially based upon theory (just a small reminder). It's survival within the media and schools has depended mainly on the fact that we, as earth, share similarities with the animals. The essential misconception here is that-that fact is supposed to mean we must have been among their denominator once upon a time simply because our joints and organs work the same. The thing of it is, this hypothesis is based upon the infamous transitions that are supposed to be numbered in the billions. It's like the last resort that evolutionists keep a death grip on, except the satire is transitions are also their first one. I pretty much look at this with incredulity considering the proof being used to reason evolution's existence. There's what? 9 transitions found that people base their conclusion on? Problem with that is most of them are fake if not really transitions at all.
Piltdown Man: Hoax
The first up is Eoanthropus (Piltdown Man), prolly the most famous of fossils during the 20th century. It was discovered by Charles Dawson and denoted as honing a human like skull with an apelike jaw. He was further reasoned to be transition from crude tools and carvings found in his vicinity. For over 40 years, he was used as proof that evolution existed. In 1953 though, after many more scientists were studying his bones, they found out that Piltdown Man was actually an orangutan's jaw mixed a with a human skull. The teeth of the orangutan were filed down to make it look realistically flush with the human bone fragment and they were placed in chemicals to make them look ancient. It was then buried next to other human skull fragments so they'd be easily found. There was so much blind faith put into this find that none of the scientists even noticed the obvious marks on the teeth or that one of them had been filed down so far that the pulp cavity had been plugged with chewing gum. Hell, no one was even suspicious when an ancient bone tool carved in the shape of a modern cricket bat was dug up at the site. This kinda showed me that evolutionist scientists use just as much, if not more, faith to back up their claims as creationists do.
Nebraska Man: Animal Origin
Hesperopithecus had to be one of the more idiotic proclamations of the existence of evolution ever conjured up. In 1922, the basis for thinking that an ape-like man existed was a singular tooth found in Nebraska. They reconstructed a bust out of the tooth and then proceeded to mediate drawings of full fledged ape-men based off the find. It was accepted by the scientific community as genuine proof of evolution until a few years later when the tooth had turned out to belong to a pig. Interestingly enough, dumbass mistakes like this still happen today. Some fossils mistaken to be early human were in actuality modern dolphin ribs, an extinct horse's toe, and alligator bones.
Rama's Ape: Not Of Human Relation
Ramapithecus was another "missing link" between humans and apes. It was reconstructed using a few teeth, a heavy jaw bone, and some facial fragments. It was swiftly concluded that Rama's Ape was a missing link because he honed certain human-like extremities such as smaller teeth that aren't usual for apes. It was later determined that the bones were assembled incorrectly to give Rama's Ape a human-like appearance. It was also assumed by many evolutionists that the ape walked upright even though there were no hip or leg bones to be found. Then came the bomb-shell in 1979 when they found a complete Ramapithecus skull which had no features that resembled man. In actuality it resembled something similar to modern orangutans.
Southern Ape: Not Of Human Relation
Australopithecus africanus is, today, being denoted by evolutionists as a true ancestor of man. Australopithecines are still considered within the chain of descent connected to humans. The first Australopithecine found was the Taung Child, a small ape skull discovered in 1924. It was in the 1970s, that the Taung Child was discovered to have been an extinct infant ape found amongst the bones of other adults.
Another variety of Australopithecus regarded as a "human ancestor" was Australopithecus boisei. The fossil was discovered in 1959 in Kenya in the shape of a large pile of fragmented bones. There were over 400 different vague pieces, but it was automatically considered that of a human ancestor before it was even reconstructed and was dubbed Zinjanthropus. A few years later, it was discovered to be another extinct ape so it went into the category of the already debunked Australopithecus.
The most famous of the A. arficanus was the Australopithecus afarensis, A.K.A., Lucy. A. afarensis females like Lucy were about 4 ft. tall whilst the males towered over them about a ft., all with ape-sized brains. Further analysis of the transition showed the feet&toes along with the craniums to be chimpanzee-like. Evolutionists even admit to that, so the mass denotation of proof of evolution based all on Lucy is purely speculatory and doesn't really hold any credibility. There were multiple other cases of varietal Australopithecines, which have been taught to be the ancestors of afarensis and arficanus (anamensis, aethiopithecus, robustus), but all of those priors have also been revealed as extinct apes.
Handy Man: Inconsistent Reconstruction
It can be accurately stated that the theory of Australopithecines is still in circulation by evolutionists today because of their dependence on Homo habilis’ legitimacy. It was said that Australopithecines are direct ascendants of Handy Man and, as the name suggests, divulges some of the first human characteristics. The problem with this summation is the completely mirroring factors between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. They are alike in almost every way from the exact shape and size of the cranium to the exact typical height. There's absolutely nothing that would suggest increased efficiency in the form of Homo Habilis from Australopithecine. It is only slight differentials in the bone structure that cause spoken diversity on the matter of comparablitiy between Australopithecines and Homo habilis. Further trouble trying to prove the transitional weight of Handy Man arose in 1972 in Kenya when, a relatively short distance away from the site of Homo habilis, skull and leg bones were found. The skull was so severely shattered, that any assumed shape made into by the fragments would be concluded as highly subjective, but based on the volume of the combined fragments, it is concluded that the size of it would outgrow an Australopithecine’s. The leg bones, however, are unmistakably human. This creates doubt for the evolutionists who still proclaim Handy Man as human-like since the transition site is tainted, if not debunked, by human skeletal fragments being mixed in with ape ones.
Java Man: Time Gap
Homo Erectus was discovered in 1893 in Indonesia. The fossil content consisted of skull fragments and leg bones. The skull cap had some unusual heavy brow rides, which was what caused the speculation, but the femur bone was confirmed to have come from a normal human. The discoverer, Eugene Dubois’, claimed that the bones came from an ape-man and were over 500,000 years old, yet there was a gregarious amount of problems with his story. First, it turned out that the bones within the rock were fifty years apart from each other. Pithecanthropus erectus was also found within a rock accompanied by a normal human skull and other fragments (it was later called Wadjak Man) and were apparently from around the same time period of 500 years earlier. What’s more, Dubois’ had kept the fossils secret for over thirty years, which creates cause for suspicion as to whether or not he re-tooled the skull.
Peking Man: Unknown
Sinanthropus Pekinensis was supposedly one of the best chances for evolutionists to gain some footing (what little footing they could get anyway). Peking Man was denoted as being very similar to Java Man, which led to both fossils being reclassified as Homo erectus, yet the haphazard methods of Dubois instantly titled the possibility as controversial. The greater problem though is there was no substantial study that led to any conclusions before the fossil was lost in WW2. D’oh!
There were hundreds of other Homo erectus fossils discovered in Africa and Asia that are perhaps the most speculative of all cases. While the fossils do include unusual characteristics such as sloped forehead, ridges above the eyes, relatively acute facial angle (for humans), large teeth, and receding chin, the cranial structure is well within human standards and the odd features aren’t dissimilar of characteristics caused by poor body maintenance. It was discovered that these creature used tools, fire, and paint, thus they were considered intelligent. For these reasons, it is largely thought that this is an extinct race of humans with a possible vitamin deficiency, so Homo erectus would be more accurately described as Homo Sapien (True man). Additionally, H. erectus was contemporary with H. habilis and H. Sapiens throughout the hominid fossil record. This shows that H. erectus should not be shown as an evolutionary link between the Australopithecine apes and “modern” humans.
Neanderthal Man: Fully Human-Time Inconsistency
In 1856, Homo Neanderthalensis was found in Germany and said to have “ape-like” characteristics. After their first discovery, media was all over it. People assembled Neanderthal Man’s bones in the shape of a sitting stooped brutish caveman figure. As we all know, this coverage reached far and wide creating imaginative realities with naked families honing brute extremities and living out of the light. Their copious coverage convincing us that this was a “missing link” ancestor. Unfortunately for the publicizing paleontologists, Homo Neanderthalensis was an evolutionary dream-bubble later popped by further analysis. It was discovered that the Neanderthal wasn’t a stooped postured, stupid, shuffling individual, but rather an intelligent and civilized Homo Sapien. Unearthed evidence shows that Neanderthals weren’t only lingual tool users, but also physically superior to humans in just about every way. They had larger more powerful muscles and bones along with 11% more brain mass. It is now admitted by evolutionists that Neanderthals are fully human and thus, they were dubbed Homo Sapiens Neanderthalensis. Furthermore, it has become evident that the Neanderthals and modern man lived as contemporaries. Bones of modern man and Neanderthals were found only yards apart from each other. This suggests that Neanderthals are an extinct race of humans that lived along side modern man or that they were a minority of humans afflicted with a body deforming disease reminiscent of giantry.
Cro-Magnon Man: Fully Human
Homo Sapiens Sapiens are in much the same category of Neanderthals in their speculation and their forms. Cro-Magnon’s were found in 1868 and were considered to be sub-human due to cranial deformities, but it is now clear that they merely had larger brains and are clarified as a tribe that lived in the cave and hunted Bison. In all actuality, Cro-Magnon’s are identical to modern man except for the surplus of brain matter.
On a side-note, the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal aren’t the only victims of evolution. There was a fossil bird called Archaeopteryx, which was proclaimed a missing link between the bird and the dinosaur, but upon closer inspection, it was shown to have flight feathers and hollow bones like modern birds do today. The unusual features consisting of teeth, elongated tail, claws, and breastbone, while rare, are not unknown for some modern birds to have. So as it turns out, Archaeopteryx is a True Bird. There was also another case involving a supposed ancestor of the horse called Hyracotherium because the find resembled that of the African hyrax (rock rabbit), but evolutionist scientists later speculated that it had the similarities of a horse, so they titled it “Eohippus”. An evolutionary tree was constructed to illustrate how the Eohippus had evolved into a modern day Equus, emphasizing an increase in size and reduction of toes over time. This conclusion wasn’t as clear-cut as it sounds though; the Eohippus had eighteen pairs of ribs, but its supposed descendent, Orohippus, had only fifteen pairs of ribs; a later stage in the tree illustrated that Pliohippus had nineteen pairs of ribs, while the modern day horse has eighteen pairs of ribs. This inconsistency is strong evidence that the horse series doesn’t truly exist and that it’s actually a collection of mammals that share a similar overall body plan. Further problems with the horse series come from the fact that it’s composed of fossils found from all over the world. Some were found in India, others in Europe, and others in North America, so there’s a big problem there. Scientists also dispute the series because the Eohippus does not resemble a horse.
Those are pretty much the main arguments that speak for evolution, but as I said, they’re full of holes. Of course Darwinism didn’t actually die out pre-mid 21st century cuz’ of these finds since most of them weren’t studied yet. No, Darwinism was written off due to the fossil finds that dated back thousands of years. Evolution’s truth is/was based off of, of course, transitional forms. These forms, even Darwin admitted, would have to be many….many, many, many, many, many, many times cycled. Every fossil find revealing an ancient animal ranging from pre-historic to Neolithic would have to have very tiny changes for each specimen. But to evolutionists’ dread, with each fossil, they just found a basic repeat of all the modern animals with no changes in structure at all. An obvious implication to this would be total function with each and every small transition that occurs within the body of the animal. One of the mascots of this theory is the bat, which is taught to be descended from a shrew-like rodent. The problem with this assumption is the wings. Over a long enough transitional phase, the slow development of the webbing on the claws of the creature would impede on its ability to live. What’s more, transitional paleontology has revealed no transitional developments between insectivores and bats, which is coupled with the fact that the earliest known fossil of a bat is the Eocene bat Icaronycteris, which is 100% bat.
With these break downs in the theory of Darwinist evolution, came the birth of splinter theories, one being Punctuated Equilibrium. This theory is based on macro mutation. More to point, the theory is flawed due to its basis of small transitional steps taken place through the descending generations, which is, of course, identical to the base argument that tries to back up Darwinism (the current laws of heredity stating that organisms have a limit for inherited traits also speak against it as well as against Darwin). The only differences between the two theories are that Punctuated Equilibrium dictates the transitions as being much more voluminous and far more random. That additive though makes it even more fallacious. The term for this is called the Hopeful Monster; the implication that thousands of macro mutations throughout the biological structure of a creature will eventually create a harmonious genetic makeup, thus the term “equilibrium”. The problem with this theory is pretty obvious: There’s nothing to dictate (even from the POV of the theoretical single-cell evolution) that those mutations would coordinate an outline between the different species’ of the earth let alone a single life form. Even if P.E. did create our bodies to be genetically harmonious with themselves and not have our organs impede on each other, that many random changes isn’t going to create different families of animals or even separate sexes (let alone have a standard). Every mutated form would be its own unique design. Every mutation for every singular life form would be different. All of this is piled on top of the fact that even if Punctuated Evolution were true, 5 billon years wouldn’t have been enough to create us, let alone every other species on this earth. There is the more popular theory founded by De Vries that the macro mutations would depend of the environment the creature’s in, meaning that theory works together with Darwin’s analysis of Natural Selection. Darwin’s already shown to be false analysis aside, going for a last ditch effort and saying environment dictates thousands of small “errors” (De Vries labeled the macro mutations as “errors” because they were supposedly trying to contradict the existing biology of the organism depending on the environment) throughout your system is ludicrous. The errors wouldn’t happen fast enough for a creature to not be unhealthily affected, perhaps even destroyed and chances are that the changes would kill the organism instantly thus the mutations would cease to continue. Hopeful Monster would need way more time to work as well as it has (also needs a few bugs checked out) assuming that it’s what created us. Evolutionists are proposing more of a miracle with Punctuated Evolution than creationists are. Fo’ real!
Another theory originated from one Ernst Haeckel in 1868. Haekel came up with the theory of Embryonic Recapitulation, which was essentially the slow process of the embryo inside a woman’s womb going through an evolutionary recount starting from invertebrate to his present form. This discovery turned out to be fraud; Ernst had doctored the pictures of the embryo. It was learned that he deliberately falsified his evidence to give his views bearing six years after the theories exposure……And it’s still in the high school biology books. The main view taught today is that the embryo develops temporary gill slits. These so-called gill slits are actually pouches of skin that develop into different extraneous organs (middle-ear canals, thyroid gland, parathyroid gland). They have no ability whatsoever to allow the embryo to breath in water in any stage of its development and they do not develop into respiratory related structures. The human embryo, by all evidence is simply shaped as it needs to be to fill out into infant form. Embryonic Recapitulation = Bogus.
The currently believed theory is actually on par with the audacity of Punctuated Equilibrium and assumes a lot more than it can prove. The current formation of Neo-Darwinism uses the fact that random and isolated mutations happen within animals. For example: Dual-Cepholapthy (two heads) and Polydactyly (extra fingers) and other things of that nature are considered possible preludes to environmental selection of those mutations, which would carry stronger influence within the genes farther down that certain strain. i.e. If a human is born or develops a mutation like a third leg (no, not that), and then survives with that leg, that human’s family will inherit that third leg and eventually create a newly individual species of man. This theory, in my opinion, is the most ludicrous to date. At least with the idea that your surroundings governed your mutations, you’d have more of an unfalsifiable baseline seeing as how a certain strain of species can go through permanent exterior changes over a long enough period of time, but to say that random defects are responsible for this many successful [extinct species/species] that number somewhere around 350 million is way out there. Logically, we would need much more time than around 2.5 billion years to become what we are and what we have been now. Essentially, what evolutionists are trying to do is play the odds and then declare that such a theory is not only possible, but also plausible. Allow me to show why that isn’t the case:
(Rate of mutation) = r X (Plausibility of random morphology[=0]) = p X (Window of opportunity for variety of mutations) = w X (Suspected amount of time for mutation to be successful within a particular strain of species) = s X (Individual circumstances following the evolution of every species on the planet) = i X (Number of transistions that every species on earth has gone through)= n X (Theory) = t
RxPxWxSxIxNxT=Y
y = Equals the pending odds of this theory of evolution being "plausible". This theory is, in fact, implausible. And what’s more insane is the supposed “evidence” evolutionists try to say otherwise with. Tracing back to the thesis here, evolutionists believe that the mere presence of genetic mutations and defects in animals is evidence enough of such a theory being true. It is most certainly not true. Not only is it the fact that no amount of observed mutations in animals have led to consistent mutations down the line of the strain that make this bogus, but it’s also the fact that parents who have lived with alleged polydactyl genes have not passed their effects on to their children—Even the cases where the extra limbs weren’t removed, it didn’t create such turnout! So quite simply: Saying that because there are mutations, they can generate a new species, without actually seeing it happen, is slippery slope. And two final ridiculous notions that evolutionists try to use in acts of desperation are size differential and bacterial mutation. The reference used by evolutionists regarding the mutation of bacteria is essentially a claim that because bacteria can mutate, so can the body. Well, first of all, we all know the body can “mutate”. That, however, is not a strict form of evolution and has yet to be confirmed as such by their own current theory. Second of all: Our building blocks are not totally comparable to that of bacteria. We carry the same biological components such as Guanine, Adenine, Thiamine, and Cytosine that link into a type of Deoxyribonucleic Acid—However, the overall biological protocol of every different bacterial strain are too statically different and foreign to use them as mediators. Third of all: Simply because it’s in the nature of bacteria, that does not mean it is within our nature. Simply because we’re alike in that we’re bio-organisms doesn’t change that fact. And finally: Even if it was for some reason decided to make bacteria a confirmable baseline of evolution from which to base structural morphology on, bacteria is a far cry from the human body itself. Merely because the chemical and biological reactions within the body can vary greatly, that does not mean that the shape of your body is going to change. All evolutionists can prove is that bacteria effects your immune system. Moving onto size differential: The idea behind this is that because Natural Selection/Adaptation can cause a creature’s body to grow and shrink (See also: Great Dane, See also: Chihuahua), that would count as a type of evolution. This is not so because the size of the creature remains a type of exterior change. The creature remains the same biologically and structurally. Thus, it doesn’t work for their case.
There’s also the Cambrian Explosion. This is strong evidence against the single-celled theory. If the evolutionist presumption that single-cell evolution is fact were the reality of things, there’s a very puzzling contradicted posed by the lack of multiple celled evolution within the fossil records. Single-celled colonies should be found within them in many different forms and elevating their existence through the fossil timeline creating much diverse life. There has been no such progression. When geologists study Cambrian rocks, they find in the fossil a record of a sudden outburst of living things of great variety, showing no evidence of evolution. Practically empty Precambrian rocks suddenly giving way to Cambrian rocks teeming with many representatives of every major animal phylum in existence today, plus other phyla that are now extinct. Evolutionists call this “mystery” the Cambrian Explosion because life seems to have “exploded” onto the scene. However, this arrangement is just what we would expect if life were created.
“If there has been evolution of life, the absence of requisite in fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling.”
-Marshal Kay and Edwin H. Colbert,
Stratigraphy and Life History
The final point I want to address is the assumed conclusions which evolutionists place on their hierarchal timeframe for fossils. Quite simply, it’s based upon circular reasoning. Evolutionists have lined up the chronology of fossils using the Geologic Column, a type of natural time chart to show approximately the era from which the fossil derives. The idea is basically taking a slice out of the earth’s surface and viewing the vertical layers compounded by the large land mass and separating the strata into different time periods. The Geological Column, while concluded as being proof of evolution, is most certainly not in the least as such. The arrangement is purely hypothetical and since it cannot be viewed anywhere on the face of the earth, it means nothing. The most evolutionists have been able to use this column is when they guess how far down on what assumed layer an unconfirmed time-slot is labeled. The succession of fossils indicated by the Geologic Column occurs nowhere in the world. There’s no real strict evolutionary progression within the column, they are actually sorted mainly by habitat and mobility. That trilobites (a small type of extinct arthropod) lived before dinosaurs, and dinosaurs lived before mammals is an assumption based on the hypothesis of evolution; the fossil record merely indicates that trilobites, dinosaurs, and mammals were usually buried in different places (perhaps because they lived in different habitats). This leads back to “circular reasoning”, an argument based on the very assumption it attempts to prove; evolution being backed up by the Geologic Column is a perfect example. A more critical example of this is Radiometric Dating, a type of system used by evolutionists to lend credence to the fossils’ ancient dates. Radiometric Dating is based on the fact that atoms of certain elements break down into other elements (known as “daughter” elements) at relatively constant rates. The decay of these naturally occurring radioactive elements can (in principle) be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil. In practice, however, Radiometric Dating of fossils (like the Geologic Column itself), is based on circular reasoning. This is true because the decay of an element cannot be used to calculate the age of a rock or fossil unless both the original and final amounts of radioactive element in the sample are known. Although the present composition of the sample is easily measured, there is no way to measure how much the “parent” and “daughter” elements were originally in the sample. Nor is there any way to measure how much of the “parent” or “daughter” element entered or escaped the sample during the decay process. Thus the scientist must estimate the amount based on several guesses. Because the estimates made by most scientists are usually based on evolutionary assumptions, circular reasoning enters the argument once again: The assumption of evolution is used to estimate the original ratio of “parent” and “daughter” elements, which is used to calculate a date, which “proves” the assumption of evolution. In other words, radiometric dates are largely determined by the assumptions of the person doing the dating. In fact, if evolutionary assumptions are replaced with creationist assumptions, the dates given by several dating methods often become more or less consistent with the Genesis chronology. Because of the subjective nature of Radiometric Dating, if a date is obtained that does not fit the Geologic Column, it is a simple matter to adjust one’s guesses to the evolutionary time scale. The hypothesis of evolution determines which dates are “acceptable”; dates outside this range are deemed erroneous and discarded.
There are also such dating devices of C-14 that are used to date the geology that surrounds the fossils. Because the carbon in the fossils has long since deteriorated, the radiocarbon of the earth is used to narrow down the dates of the fossils within the respective fossil layers. There are a number of things wrong with this: 1) Because the sedimentary layers constantly move and shift, there’s no telling that the radiocarbon from the spot their dating would give the date that’s consistent with the layer they’re dating—The moving and shifting furthermore evidences the fact that the fossils don’t stay in one place either. 2) The sediment layers are, again, assumed] to be as old as they’re said to be. With the sediment layers constantly moving and the amount of carbon being switched back and forth all around, the samples become verily corrupted. This leads to one of two conclusions on the part of the evolutionist scientist: a) If the sample isn’t old enough to be apart of the sediment layer, the test is disregarded and he moves onto Radiometric and b) If the sample is at least in the estimated date vicinity of what the evolutionist scientist expected it to be in, he dubs the test accurate and prolly doesn’t bother with Radiometric on the fossil (wouldn’t help much anyway though). And 3) C-14 is plagued with problems of inaccuracy. It can be trusted—However, the conditions have to be perfect for the dating to be accurate. The biggest problem encountered by the use of C-14 in paleontology and geology is temperature concerns. Carbon can be sustained by cold weather and degraded by heat. Climate changes have a way of corrupting the tests. For instance, scientists find it rather convenient that the Woolly Mammoth found frozen in the arctic (along with other tropical animals) were dated back to 8000 years and all of the Mammoth carcasses found farther and farther away from the cold area of the arctic keep getting older. This is especially suspicious sense even evolutionists surmise that they migrated out of the arctic—Meaning the bodies found in the center should be the oldest. This is all piled onto by C-14’s many other problems:
Problems with Radiometric and C-14
In the end, what’s left is the Sun and ambiogensis. Two theories that are more the toppings on the cake. Straight to the point: The Sun is seen as absolute proof of the earth’s age as its universally viewed to be 5 billion years old. Problems with this is the fact that everything revolving around Sol (that isn’t planets) is 99% theory. So people don’t truly know if it or the earth is that old based only on its presence. And regarding ambiogensis: This simply hasn’t been proven. This is allegedly the pre-requisite for evolution since it would have created the material for evolution’s eventual fruition (us). But so far, non-living matter has not been able to be synthesized into living matter. Neither naturally, nor manually has such a reaction occurred. We are furthermore not given any reason to believe as such.
So really, the difference in the theories of evolution and creationism is publicity. Take my word for it: Evolution has destroyed 70% of the integrity of modern science.
Additionally, one of the biggest fallacies encountered in these types of discussions is unfair advantage of one’s explanation’s theory over another’s through corruption of spectator opinion. The public has become so attuned to the idea that evolution is reality, they don’t even bother to observe what evidence they claim exists, because they think it’s that thing that everyone knows but simply doesn’t talk about—And in turn, people start remembering what made it so “credible”. In the end, the only real proof they can think of is the fact that the media buffs have paid homage to the idea of evolution. The popular sci-fis, the teen flicks, cartoons, news—Everyone/Everywhere. Even if their existed such proof, the fact that people reference it and don’t actually understand its dynamics or realize that it’s outdated or don’t even understand what they’re talking about creates the very rightfully placed perception of intellectual dissonance and the overall idea that they’re drones eating out of the hands of a corrupt authority. Considering this voice is almost monopolized by people on the left, I find that very humorous. The real culprit behind such a quagmire isn’t any sort of informational atrophy, but rather the direct blame goes straight back to the progenitors of the theory in question. Which brings me back to my point: Evolutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives. When every single one of their “transitions” or “sustainable theories” was debunked, they, very quietly, concurred with these multiple falsifications, but made almost no efforts to inform anyone about it. By such a time, evolution had already taken up residence within the minds of almost everyone on the face of the planet, and thus, they refused to care. Pure biasness was the cause for this theory’s survival. Biasness is the reason why these “transitions” and “discoveries” weren’t taken out of the biology text-books for multiple decades. And eventually, even with the bulk of them gone, “evolution” was still stuck in everyone’s head and exploited in the media. So when you walk up to a person on the street and ask them about the subject, they’re more than likely going to recite the exploits of Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Lucy, etc. and say that they’re undisputable proof of evolution—When they’re not. And this piled onto the fact that whilst the higher up scientists of the profession were busy not educating people on the fact that their evidence has been reduced to shambles, the current ones are claiming that evolution has gone through the proper channels of falsifiablity/unfalsifiablity. And that’s definitely not true since their theory wasn’t bothered to be refined for a full 80 years onward. You see, from the 1900s+ evolution was hanging on by a thread, because it had yet to gain total popularity at that time. The only thing keeping it from being totally destroyed was a) The more active secularists’ unwillingness to believe in a creator and b) Piltdown Man. PM’s presence was enough to squash any argument due to his believed infallibility. The problem was that scientists lacked anything beyond theoretical application to name him a true transition. However, because he was overall present and unlike nothing ever seen before, retaining both human and ape characteristics, he was automatically labeled a true transitional fossil without further manipulation of the theory. So Piltdown Man was unofficially-officially a transition due to a break in theory. Unwittingly, this also crossed a line that science said it wouldn’t cross due to its anti-religious nature in the face of faith; it proclaimed a theory, backed up by pseudo-science to be infallible. Evolution supposedly spear-headed the conclusion that science was more believable than religion because it kept itself open to falsifiablity whereas religion had a set doctrine that couldn’t be tampered with. In which case, the idea of “refining” theories based on trial and error (i.e. the numerous theories of evolution) became convenient wordplay and scattered reasoning that would simply allow evolution to survive. Because these theories weren’t actually changed through step by step procedure and rather remained a type of doctrine, evolution proved itself less credible than religion—Not only in the case of faith, but also in its hypocrisy of violating the proclamation of “falsifiability” (of course I’m only going off of secular standards when I say “less credible than religion” since I obviously believe in a religion). Religion at least admits to having/had a consistent tune.
Breaching further into the subject of “falsifiablity/unfalsifiablity”, evolutionist have a habit of being rather slippery slope in labeling what makes their case for saying evolution is unfalsifiable (like gravity). Their main assertion for saying such a claim is substantiated is Natural Selection and Adaptation. These are two Darwinian theories that Christians concur with—However, to say that their confirmed presence alone is evident enough of unfalsifiability doesn’t work. NS and adaptation both involve a singular creature changing in mannerism and its exterior mutating to its environment so it can be better suited. This is the part creationists and evolutionists can agree upon. However, both theories also imply morphological physiology on the part of that creature. Obviously, this wouldn’t fly now because morphology isn’t proven. But due to Piltdown Man’s influence, both parts of the theories applied to its unfalsifiability. Today, logically, this shouldn’t be the case…But it is. It could not be supported as unfalsifiable back then without the entirety of the implications from both terms, and yet evolutionists think its incompleteness is still enough for it to work now. The main brunt and controversial segment of evolution is its attempt to decree that an animal’s shape changes over a long enough timeline depending on the certain environment that animal inhabits. Again, this is called “morphological physiology”. Such a thing, however, has not been proven. The non-controversial segment is, obviously, that a creature’s skin and/or hair and habits change according to the surroundings. Because this segment doesn’t support the full morphing of one thing into something else completely, it cannot be used to justify unfalsifiability.
Another point regarding the one-sidedness of such conversations is the misconception that science is a type of anti-religion—When it’s not. Secularists do not have a monopoly of scientific use. Such a perception is created based on merely the fact that popular media has drawn to the conclusion that the very existence of science means lack of existence on the part of a certain faith’s god, which is utter malarkey. A proper context is that science proved a religion wrong (it hasn’t actually done that either though). Meaning that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well. The popular view of science as being a secular invention is simply ignorance at its peak. Even if one was to say that proclaiming science as an anti-religious invention was merely a type of bypass of all the litany and conclusions that tried to reason, through scientific analysis, the idea that science is inherently anti-religion, and not, by nature, anti-religious, such reasoning still wouldn’t hold water since logic doesn’t dictate that a god can’t exist. Trying to use “science” in such a broad fashion to instantly repel religiously-based arguments is only proof of more fallacy on the part of secularists. “Science” is a type of organization for many different individual and respective fields of analytical analysis (synonymous)—This does not, however, mean that every one of those fields would be a valid study (i.e. junk science). It simply means that it is a study. Period. “Science” is not an insta-gib device meant to ward off a certain argument or arguer. So while secularists are busy monopolizing labels like “pragmatist” and “intellectualist”, Christian’s are labeled as lunatics because arguing with such a concept like “pragmatism” is unthinkable.
Very interesting, Pariah. Who wrote it?
Pariah said: Take my word for it: Evolution has destroyed 70% of the integrity of modern science.
Your 8th grade diploma certainly backs up that statement.
Come back with your spiel once you've gotten a real education and achieved some things with your life and are doing more than spouting another person's words. Then maybe we'll talk.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Very interesting, Pariah. Who wrote it?
I'm not sure if you're joking or not, but...I wrote it.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Your 8th grade diploma certainly backs up that statement.
If you went to high school, you'd know that there's no such thing as an eighth grade diploma.
Quote:
Come back with your spiel once you've gotten a real education and achieved some things with your life and are doing more than spouting another person's words. Then maybe we'll talk.
Awwww! Poor Jim can't come to grips with the fact that he doesn't know shit about evolution.
Jim, does this mean every time you decide to write down documented fact or opinion about something that's not related to your profession that I can use the knee jerk argument, "Get a degree in such and such, and then we'll talk"?
I wasn't joking, Pariah--the aforementioned post was lucid, calm, and informative. But I'd still like to see some citations--links and the like.
I'll frame my response by offering a quote from a
web page related to the Lucy fossil (and applies to
both sides):
Quote:
"Everyone...is entitled to their beliefs, but once belief supercedes evidence, a dangerous ground is encroached."
What I found interesting:
- Your methodology in rationally refuting famous fossils is quite sound, and I applaud you for asking questions. After poking around a bit (just on the 'net, no books--wish I had more time) I found some inconsistencies in your narrative. Please keep in mind these are cursory searches I've performed and don't claim them to be the end-all.
- Your assertions about Dubois appear to not take intoaccount all sides of the story. Alluding to the idea that he may have altered the skull won't influence anyone either, as it lacks credibility.
- Your reliance on fossils as the primary method of disproving evolution assumes that everyone agrees on every significant fossil discovery. Numerous searches on the "Taung Child" didn't reveal the conclusions you claim in your original post. (Now I understand that both the religious and scientists have their own dogma, but I accessed several pages without a mention. Which is why I asked for your sources.) Your conjecture simply isn't enough to sway opinion without additional proof.
- Your characterization of evolution falls closely to the classic straw-man argument, setting up the weakest of theories to be shot down. When you ignore arguemnts contrary to your own opinion, you cannot strengthen your argument. For a scientific argument to be worthwhile, you must consider the weapons of your enemies.
- The problem with posting equations is that they're akin to statistics: they can be used to prove whatever the author wants to prove. Words like "suspected" and "circumstances" leave room for interpretation, and that debate would only lead back to the beginning of the argument.
- When trying to convince readers that an intelligent being is responsible for life on Earth, you should avoid using the phrase "circular reasoning". Any attempt to empirically prove the existence of God/intelligent being relies on circular reasoning, unless you're able to prove otherwise. Otherwise, a person is merely choosing what type of circular reasoning they'd prefer to believe, with no real results obtained.
- Your central thesis, that " [e]volutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives" makes what was a relatively balanced paper another faceless proclomation of "I'm right, you're wrong". In discrediting evolution, you have neglected the proposition of your own countertheory that explains what evolution cannot. (And, as I mentioned before, your "debunking" is dubious in several places.)
- Your point about science being the domain of all is true--but your slippery slope is here for all to see. To say " that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well" is to say that science becomes a didactic tool for selective use; science isn't a book where you can Sharpie over the lines that don't suit you. Science proposes open-ended theories that will either continue to be proven true or disproven as our knowledge of the world around us expands. Your wielding of religion as a limited weapon against secularism belies your biases and weakens your overall argument. If you believe science is valid, then you believe in the answers it provides regardless of your personal orientations. But to say that science should be used only to prove the points you want to prove is silly, limited and unconvincing.
I will now ask the question: why should anyone doubt/not believe in evolution while believing in intelligent design?
Quote:
theory9 said:
But I'd still like to see some citations--links and the like.
Every single one of my sources was from books moreso than websites. Very few, I made sure, were relgious. However, I could not find all of this information from a singular source. Every book I read usually catered to the representatation of evolutionary evidence by saying, "This is false--But all these are true!" Each time there'd be a different denotation of what's false out of the bunch. Anyways, I'd have to get to writing down my citations later, but I'm 90% sure that there's an online source for everyone of my references. I mean, I'm pretty sure I checked before hand.
Quote:
theory9 said:
Your reliance on fossils as the primary method of disproving evolution assumes that everyone agrees on every significant fossil discovery.
Hold on there. I haven't been using the fossils, or lack there of, to disprove evolution. Four things I've tried to demonstrate with their mention:
a) Evolutionary discovery has irreversably corrupted modern science through the use of false evidence.
b) This so called evolutionary empirical evidence ceased to give evolution any sort of empirical value over half a century ago.
c) Evolutionist scientists who proclaim science much more credible than religion in the rite that scientific discovery doesn't require faith are throwing stones in a glass house.
d) Modern Darwinism is supported by nothing. What its followers say it's supported by was debunked as either falsly labeled or inconclusive, and yet any 8 out of 10 people on the street you talk to will answer, "Missing links" to the question of, "What proves evolution?"
Quote:
Numerous searches on the "Taung Child" didn't reveal the conclusions you claim in your original post. (Now I understand that both the religious and scientists have their own dogma, but I accessed several pages without a mention. Which is why I asked for your sources.) Your conjecture simply isn't enough to sway opinion without additional proof.
Again, all of my sources were from various secular and slight few religous books, I don't have them on hand. I did, however, www.fuckinggoogleit.com and came up with a mention on my first try.
Scroll down till you hit "Australopithecus Africanus", and then there's a summary below.
Quote:
Your characterization of evolution falls closely to the classic straw-man argument, setting up the weakest of theories to be shot down.
I've already explained the nature of evolution as scientific theory when I outlined the fallacy of labeling it unfalsifiable within my post. I didn't slouch on that subject. The transitions were just categorically easier to write out first.
Quote:
When you ignore arguemnts contrary to your own opinion, you cannot strengthen your argument.
Point of information: The idea that Miller-Urey was able to synthesize living material from non-living material is a mass misinterpretation. Just like Fredriech Wohler's synthesization of Urea, the Miller-Urey was able to synthesize a merely organic material. However, it is a common misconception that "organic" means "living" when it simply means that there is a presence of carbon.
Quote:
For a scientific argument to be worthwhile, you must consider the weapons of your enemies.
I have covered each and every single one of the points listed within that wikipedia article ranging from the hypothetical nature of the fossil record, to the horse family, to the growth and shape of limbs.
Quote:
The problem with posting equations is that they're akin to statistics: they can be used to prove whatever the author wants to prove. Words like "suspected" and "circumstances" leave room for interpretation, and that debate would only lead back to the beginning of the argument.
Definitely not in this case. The equation I negotiated was based on my highly critical analysis of the evolutionist tone, which says freak accident mutations make the transitition. Trying to measure the probability of freak mutation is impossible since mutation is completely and totally random. Therefore, any assumed date they choose will be wildly inaccurate if based purely on the, supposedly, transitional fossil. This, of course, was coupled with the noted implausability that their theory of random mutation wouldn't have nearly enough time to take fruition, but not primarily.
Quote:
When trying to convince readers that an intelligent being is responsible for life on Earth, you should avoid using the phrase "circular reasoning". Any attempt to empirically prove the existence of God/intelligent being relies on circular reasoning, unless you're able to prove otherwise. Otherwise, a person is merely choosing what type of circular reasoning they'd prefer to believe, with no real results obtained.
This would only be the case if I was asking people to believe in a creator--And I'm not. I'm simply demonstating how evolution has just as much speaking for it as intelligent design does in terms of evidence and faith. And the fact that evolutionists say otherwise is what I'm grilling here.
Quote:
Your central thesis, that " [e]volutionists have made intensely desperate efforts to see that the theory, or what still remains of it, survives" makes what was a relatively balanced paper another faceless proclomation of "I'm right, you're wrong".
Again, I haven't been trying to convince people that there is a God with that post.
Quote:
Your point about science being the domain of all is true--but your slippery slope is here for all to see. To say " that religion itself can indeed use science to prove its points as well" is to say that science becomes a didactic tool for selective use; science isn't a book where you can Sharpie over the lines that don't suit you.
I honestly do not know how you come to such a conclusion. I said that science has proved certain religious accounts correct in some instances. That does not mean that religion uses science to prove every single assertion it makes whatever it may be.
Quote:
If you believe science is valid, then you believe in the answers it provides regardless of your personal orientations.
Of course, but it always depends on how that science was used. It's like your same convictions towards creationists in that they misuse science. I'm saying that evolutionists are victim of the same prideful and bias folly--Even moreso than creationists. If, however, your leading to the idea that science disproves God with this statement: That's not something science has proved wrong (because it can't).
Quote:
But to say that science should be used only to prove the points you want to prove is silly, limited and unconvincing.
I have never said anything of the sort.
Quote:
I will now ask the question: why should anyone doubt/not believe in evolution while believing in intelligent design?
I'm not saying anyone should believe in Intelligent Design. I am, however, saying that there's is ample reason not to believe in Evolution.
Princess Elisa:" I fucked Glacier16 and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."
Quote:
Pig Iron said:
Princess Elisa:" I fucked Glacier16 and all I got was this stupid T-shirt."
Pariah--
Now why can't you post like that all the time?
Quote:
Pariah said:
Quote:
Methos said:
Sigh...I'll sum it up as briefly as I can then.
The first verse of the Bible may imply that God created a basic form of the earth before the seven days of creation, and that the seven days was spent modified and putting the finishing touches on that which he had already created. Leading to the possibility that the first seven days listed in the Bible might not be the first seven days of the planet Earth's existence - stuff might have been going on before those seven days.
Or perhaps he created it and then went down to "separate the waters". According the very first sentence, that conclusion would be much more prudent.
Doesn't that count as creating and then modifying, which is exactly what I'm proposing as a possibility?
Quote:
So once again - and I really though I'd made this clear - I'm not asking if God created Earth, and I'm not out to prove whether he did or didn't. The only thing I'm speculating about is "when." Does the first verse imply that God get started on creating the world before the seven days of Creation?
Uh.....No you're not. You're going at length to argue about it. You're pretty much past any point of "offering speculation".
What great lengths? You didn't seem to get my point and I'm clarifying out of the kindness of my heart just on the off chance I hadn't made myself clear.
Quote:
Methos said:
No I'm not. Either you're really not getting what I'm saying, or you're not reading it carefully enough.
You said:
After all, the first line says the heavens and earth were created,
But nowhere in the seven days does it show that the world and heavens and earth were formed from out of nowhere.
More directly adressing this, the Bible, in fact, does not say it came from nowhere, but that God created it and then went to it and rearranged everything.
THAT'S WHAT I'VE BEEN SAYING ALL ALONG!!!
Quote:
It certianly wouldn't be a summary of a post explanation as I had asserted, but you were playing with separation of context too much for me to figure that out.
Passing the blame to me because you couldn't figure out what I was so clearly saying?
Quote:
That's not at all what I'm doing.
Quote:
Yes it is. You're proclaiming that because the word "beginning" isn't used multiple times throughout the explanation of the seven days that the world prolly sat their in a disarrayed mess for a long time before God came to fix it up.
Nice way of maniplating what I'm actually saying.
If this is what every discussion around here is going to be like, the hell with it. If anyone wants to debate what I'm actually saying, fine. But I'm not wasting any time trying to play clean-up because people are either too stupid to figure out what I'm saying or feel like they have to manipulate what other people say to come out on top of an argument.
It's been fun, but I've had it. Anarchy and chaos I can deal with. Deliberate idiocy...forget it.
Wow. Pariah drove someone from the forum.
Bsams ain't got nuthin' on smee!
Pariah, you've won nothing. I doubt you've converted a single person to the ID theory or creation myth for all the verbage you've spent on it. Maybe that's not your goal. I didn't join in because I know this argument to be futile. I can live with agreeing to disagree.
The thing I'm left wondering is how, at your youthful age, did you become so closed minded? You seem to think that everything worth knowing was known in the first millenium. What happened to you? Why do you need such rigid thinking?
You remind me of economists I studied in college that were constantly bemoaning the failure of reality to conform to their theories.
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
WBAM--
You left out two "blah"s.
Sincerely,
Theo
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
Did you say something? Fuckin' bastard
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
At least you spelled it right.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
At least you spelled it right.
well played!
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
Did you say something? Fuckin' bastard
No, acctually I didn't.
Quote:
Jim Jackson said:
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
Quote:
magicjay38 said:
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah, blah, blah,blah, blah.
At least you spelled it right.
Heh.
Quote:
wannabuyamonkey said:
...acctually...
Well, there goes THAT winning streak.
Oh, Jesus.
Newsday
Long Island
Compromise between Darwin and God
In effort to challenge the belief by some that God, Darwin’s theories don’t jibe, clergy group calls for coexistence
February 11, 2006, 9:31 PM EST
BY CAROL EISENBERG, STAFF WRITER
The Rev. Richard E. Edwards will not mince words in his sermon today about God and Charles Darwin, the 19th century naturalist whose theory of evolution rocked the world.
"I want to reaffirm the compatibility of Biblical tradition and modern science," said Edwards, pastor of Stony Brook Community Church, a small, Methodist congregation that draws members from the nearby university and medical center. "This is a community where science counts, and where folks really need to hear that."
At a time when conservative Christians are mounting aggressive challenges to the teaching of evolution in public schools, Edwards is one of about 400 pastors nationwide, mostly from mainline Protestant churches, who are participating in "Evolution Sunday" to promote the idea that Christianity and .science may coexist peacefully.
Today, on Darwin's birthday, some will draw upon the Book of Job to validate the innate human thirst for understanding. Others will lead discussions about how to reconcile a divine Creator with the notion that life evolved through a random process of .natural selection.
"I believe that instead of suppressing or falsifying science, we people of faith need to go back to the theological drawing board in order to rethink our existing theology in the light of new data -- just as Martin Luther and John Calvin did nearly five centuries ago," said the Rev. Byron E. Shafer of Rutgers Presbyterian Church on the Upper West Side of Manhattan.
Evolution Sunday is part of a broader campaign begun a year ago called the Clergy Letter Project. Through e-mail and word-of-mouth, 10,266 clergy have now signed an online letter backing evolution as "a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests."
The project is the brainchild of Michael Zimmerman, a biologist rather than a clergyman, who said he was fed up with Christian preachers who told people that they had to choose between evolution and God -- "and that if you choose evolution, you're going to hell, and if you choose our version of .religion, you'll be saved."
"One of the goals of the Clergy Letter Project," Zimmerman said, "is to demonstrate that the choice that people are trying to foist on them is a false dichotomy. The fact that thousands of clergy are standing up and saying, 'We are comfortable in our beliefs, in our faith and in our God, and we are comfortable with modern science,' is a very forceful statement."
Zimmerman, a Wisconsin college administrator, declined to elaborate on his own religious beliefs beyond saying he does not attend church.
Many of the clergy participating in Evolution Sunday say they have no doubt that God is behind the process of natural selection -- but unlike backers of intelligent design, they describe those beliefs as religious, rather than scientific, and therefore, appropriate for Sunday school rather than science class.
A few acknowledge they are struggling themselves with how to reconcile Darwin's concepts with a .Christian world view.
The notion that life evolved through a random and often brutal process does not square easily, Shafer said, with Christian notions of creation -- or, for that matter, a benevolent God.
"People want to believe that we humans are special in the sight of God, and that we are a distinct and separate creation," he said. "So obviously those who are challenging that concept have a lot of .explaining to do."
Others are more sanguine about reconciling the world views -- if only to enhance their appreciation of the .complexity of God's creation.
"Does the theory of natural selection raise questions for us?" asked the Rev. Catherine Schuyler, Protestant chaplain at Stony Brook University and pastor of Grace Presbyterian Church in Selden, who is .married to Edwards.
"Yes, of course. But I don't think questions are such a scary thing. Questions are how we go deeper into our understanding, and therefore, deeper into our own faith."