Full Version: Scientific basis for creationism
geographic isolation is just one potential condition for new species, not the defining one. My point was just to show that though polar bears and grizzlies are classified as different species, they have been known to breed in the wild (rarely). The definition of species is a little bit squishy sometimes.
Doesnt really matter for purposes of the evolution-creation debate though as creationists dont usually consider speciation evidence for the theory of evolution. They believe their fixed 'kinds' are at a higher taxonomic level, with new species just being minor variation.
Doesnt really matter for purposes of the evolution-creation debate though as creationists dont usually consider speciation evidence for the theory of evolution. They believe their fixed 'kinds' are at a higher taxonomic level, with new species just being minor variation.
QUOTE(santasdad @ Dec 26 2002, 11:39 AM)
Many christian churches have NO problem with evolution (including many protestant churches and the catholics).
That is true. However, I believe that most Christians are uninformed of the scientific basis of creationism and just blindly accept evolutionary theory as pure fact.
Yeah, and this shocking news story proves it!
http://www.theonion.com/onion3901/creation...ist_museum.html
Back to it, however:
The "scientific" basis for biblical creationism is necessarily predicated first on the belief that Christianity is the one true religion. Once you have this faith, eveything fits within it. You can see all the "proof" you want, because you already believe in the cause. It's not very open-ended inquiry, it's having a belief and then fitting in observations to try and support it.
If I have a firm belief in bigfoot, when I hear rustling in the forest, I may want to attribute it to bigfoot.
Trying to steep creationism in the language of science is just an attempt to return to a time when we teach the One True Religion as fact in our schools. It's a sneaky attempt, at that. I have no problem whatsoever with people believing anything they want. Creationism can never be a scientific theory. It will and should always be an article of faith.
If you believe that the reason God doesn't come down in person and prove beyond doubt he is real is that he wants us to have faith (complex theology made short and simple, sorry), then why would the same person then even bother to seek scientific evidence for God's existence?
http://www.theonion.com/onion3901/creation...ist_museum.html
Back to it, however:
The "scientific" basis for biblical creationism is necessarily predicated first on the belief that Christianity is the one true religion. Once you have this faith, eveything fits within it. You can see all the "proof" you want, because you already believe in the cause. It's not very open-ended inquiry, it's having a belief and then fitting in observations to try and support it.
If I have a firm belief in bigfoot, when I hear rustling in the forest, I may want to attribute it to bigfoot.
Trying to steep creationism in the language of science is just an attempt to return to a time when we teach the One True Religion as fact in our schools. It's a sneaky attempt, at that. I have no problem whatsoever with people believing anything they want. Creationism can never be a scientific theory. It will and should always be an article of faith.
If you believe that the reason God doesn't come down in person and prove beyond doubt he is real is that he wants us to have faith (complex theology made short and simple, sorry), then why would the same person then even bother to seek scientific evidence for God's existence?
QUOTE(quarkhead @ Jan 15 2003, 03:04 PM)
The "scientific" basis for biblical creationism is necessarily predicated first on the belief that Christianity is the one true religion.
Actually quite the opposite, references to any religion hasn't been used as a basis for this debate on creationism.
QUOTE
Creationism can never be a scientific theory. It will and should always be an article of faith.
Have you even read any of the the posts here in this thread? If so, debate the arguments presented instead of giving such blanket statements.
QUOTE
If you believe that the reason God doesn't come down in person and prove beyond doubt he is real is that he wants us to have faith (complex theology made short and simple, sorry), then why would the same person then even bother to seek scientific evidence for God's existence?
Debating God's existence would be an entirely different thread.
Alrighty then.
1. Yes, I have read through the posts here.
2. There's a big difference between expressly referencing a religion and debating under the tacit assumption of that reference. Of COURSE religion comes into play here. When you are trying to prove your creationism, you are basing the entire inquiry on the Bible and Christian Creation. Once again, you are starting with the conclusion and then working backward. NOT very scientific.
3. The logic used in the evidence for creationism is totally faulty and sloppy. You yourself used the word anomoly to describe an Astronomical event. Do you know what that word means? There are always, it seems, events and things which don't seem to fit. Sometimes these things will force us to question our premises, perhaps change some of the rules we have discovered about the universe. They do not, and cannot, in any scientific way, provide evidence to support creation. None of them. Scientific evidence is not so simplistic.
A. we have no evidence of comets being created.
B. Therefore, the universe is young.
Anyone else see a logical problem here?
I assume you are referring here to "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field" by Thomas G. Barnes, I.C.R. Barnes uses a flawed and simplistic model to conclude that the magnetic field is decreasing exponentially. He shows a real lack of understanding dynamo theory and magnetic theory in general. A really good refutation of this can be found here, by Tim Thompson of JPL.
And finally, here's Dave Matsen's enjoyable compare list:
But let's keep going, just so you can't say I'm not addressing the arguments here:
Before getting to the actual argument, let's find out about the creationist who put this theory forth, Dr. Harold Slusher. Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. CPU is an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year."
And now to the argument:
This tidbit relies on the Poynting-Robertson effect, an effect the sun has on small dust particles. The continuing absorption of sunlight robs the dust particle of more and more of its angular momentum, giving it a tendency to slowly spiral into the sun as its orbit shrinks.
However, reflected sunlight (as versus absorbed light for the Poynting-Robertson effect) applies an outward force on dust particles. As a particle gets nearer to the sun, this outward radiation pressure increases faster than the force of gravity pulling the particle in. Also, what about the gravitational effect the planets would have on dust spiraling in? Many dust particles would be kicked into elliptical orbits which would greatly lengthen their time in space. Particles can also be trapped by gravitational resonances with the larger planets, and could remain in stable orbits indefinitely.
Do we need to move on?
Well, here's an element of truth; the latest observations lead scientists to conclude that the rings of Saturn ARE young relative to the age of Saturn and the solar system - but young meaning 100 million years or so. Again, the creationist argument usually cites the Poynting-Robertson effect here as well. However, that effect is specifically about fine dust particles, and the particles of the rings are at their smallest the size of snowballs. (Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. 1993. Astronomy Today Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, 700 pages). It is furthermore based on faulty research. In 1852 Otto Struve noted that observations of Saturn's rings over the period from 1657 to 1851 show an increase in the widths of the rings and in the width of the gap between the planet and the inner edge of the B ring. The changes are interpreted to mean that the ring system is rapidly evolving and has not yet reached an equilibrium. However, Steven I. Dutch (Dutch, Steven I. 1982. "A critique of creationist cosmology" Journal of Geological Education, vol.30, pp.27-33) has evaluated these arguments and questions the observations interpreted as changes in the ring widths and distance from Saturn [1982, pp.31-32]. Drawings by Huygens in 1659 and Cassini in 1676, according to Dutch, show the proportions of the rings essentially as they are known today. Considering the poor quality of the early telescopes and the crudity of the drawings, no significant change can be inferred with any confidence.
And some final questions: what did the carnivores eat when they came off the ark? In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
1. Yes, I have read through the posts here.
2. There's a big difference between expressly referencing a religion and debating under the tacit assumption of that reference. Of COURSE religion comes into play here. When you are trying to prove your creationism, you are basing the entire inquiry on the Bible and Christian Creation. Once again, you are starting with the conclusion and then working backward. NOT very scientific.
3. The logic used in the evidence for creationism is totally faulty and sloppy. You yourself used the word anomoly to describe an Astronomical event. Do you know what that word means? There are always, it seems, events and things which don't seem to fit. Sometimes these things will force us to question our premises, perhaps change some of the rules we have discovered about the universe. They do not, and cannot, in any scientific way, provide evidence to support creation. None of them. Scientific evidence is not so simplistic.
QUOTE
Comets have relatively short life spans (thousands of years) since they are only a few kilometers across and a significant portion of it is shed by solar radiation each time it gets close to the sun. We have no evidence of comets being created. Thus, the universe is young.
A. we have no evidence of comets being created.
B. Therefore, the universe is young.
Anyone else see a logical problem here?
QUOTE
The magnetic strength of the earth has been measured to be decreasing by around 5% per century. Given that rate, if the earth was older than 20,000 years old, the original strength of the field would have been enough to melt the earth.
I assume you are referring here to "Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field" by Thomas G. Barnes, I.C.R. Barnes uses a flawed and simplistic model to conclude that the magnetic field is decreasing exponentially. He shows a real lack of understanding dynamo theory and magnetic theory in general. A really good refutation of this can be found here, by Tim Thompson of JPL.
And finally, here's Dave Matsen's enjoyable compare list:
QUOTE
Let's compare real science to "scientific" creationism.
1.
Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal. Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.
2.
Real scientists publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.
Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.
3.
Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. (Remember the cold fusion flap?) Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.
Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!
4.
Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly disappear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a novel idea.
Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma, not advancing new ideas that might question that dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.
5.
Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.
Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.
6.
Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.
Creationists take their science straight from the Bible. Many creationist leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. That's not science!
7.
No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwinism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.
Many creationist societies actually require a "loyalty oath," which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight!
8.
All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great one's success.
Except for trivial details, creationists cannot conceive of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of Bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not to probe the unknown.
9.
Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.
Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accreditation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!
10.
Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.
Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bible is suspect and in need of revision.
1.
Real scientists, as did Darwin, usually spend some time pointing out the possible weaknesses they see in their theories. This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal. Creationists usually minimize or ignore the weaknesses in their theories unless the cat is out of the bag. Inserting their views into the public educational system is usually their goal.
2.
Real scientists publish scientific literature, which can be very unorthodox, in refereed journals. This serves as a clearing house for ideas as well as a common testing ground.
Creationists, who apparently have nothing worth saying to the scientific community, invariably write for the layman. They have found it necessary to publish their ideas in special "creationist journals" because none of the hundreds of legitimate scientific journals find their work acceptable. Creationist journals mostly serve as a rallying point for the faithful, rarely as a means for criticizing their fellow believers.
3.
Real scientists are quick to criticize their colleagues if they suspect an error. (Remember the cold fusion flap?) Catching errors improves their status in the scientific community even as it improves the level of science.
Creationists have a fortress mentality, and they are quick to circle their wagons. To admit error is considered bad form among creationists, and most of them must literally be smoked out before admitting any errors whatsoever. With no effective mechanism for weeding out error, errors are passed down like the family jewels. Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!
4.
Real scientists are quick to test promising new ideas (however unorthodox) and those which don't pan out quickly disappear from the literature. Fame and fortune await any scientist who successfully advances a novel idea.
Creationists are largely concerned with protecting their dogma, not advancing new ideas that might question that dogma. Rejection is the likely lot of any creationist who questions the central dogma. Creationist arguments having serious errors, including arguments based solely on obsolete data, circulate indefinitely in the creationist literature.
5.
Real scientists are often involved in meaningful laboratory and field work. They are looking for new data which might clarify, overturn, or confirm their views.
Creationists spend most of their time combing through books and technical journals for quotes with which to snipe at evolution, geology, astronomy, and other areas of science which challenge their central dogma. When they're not doing that, they can usually be found out on the stump drumming up support among the uneducated public.
6.
Real scientists base their theories on the available evidence. They are not immune to the effects of prejudice, but they all understand that the facts dictate the conclusion. Conclusions are subservient to the data; data are not subservient to conclusions.
Creationists take their science straight from the Bible. Many creationist leaders have publicly stated, often in print, that any evidence at variance with their literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected out of hand. Their a priori conclusions dictate what data are acceptable. That's not science!
7.
No self-respecting scientist would ever think of signing an oath of allegiance to Darwinism as a condition for employment. Evidence is "king" in good science, and there is no room for competing loyalties.
Many creationist societies actually require a "loyalty oath," which is tantamount to an admission that their minds are closed! Such minds are slammed shut and rusted tight!
8.
All good scientists admit that they might be wrong, that absolute certainty is not part of science. Scientists long ago recognized that our knowledge of the physical world is largely a product of inductive reasoning. In principle, inductive reasoning can yield a high degree of confidence, but it can never confer 100% certainty. The uncertainty of inductive reasoning follows from the fact that any set of observations can be explained, in principle, by an infinite number of hypotheses! One can never rule them all out no matter how much data one has. Thus, the proper scientific attitude includes a touch of humility no matter how great one's success.
Except for trivial details, creationists cannot conceive of the possibility that they are in error as that would take down their concept of biblical inerrancy. Since "scientific" creationism is really a branch of Bible apologetics, there is no room for compromise. "Scientific" creationism is there to defend the faith, not to probe the unknown.
9.
Real scientists are often found in the great universities, where real science is done and advanced. None of those institutions take creationism seriously.
Creationists are usually associated with creationist societies. Those few "universities" where creationism is featured have either failed to get full accreditation or have done so only through the pulling of political strings. What discoveries have they made? Name their Nobel laureates!
10.
Scientists build upon previous knowledge accumulated over the years, and only rarely participate in great, revolutionary breakthroughs.
Creationists fancy that they are in the process of overthrowing modern biology, geology, astronomy, anthropology, linguistics, paleontology, archaeology, oceanography, cosmology, physics, and numerous other branches of science. Some creationists (the flat-earth societies) would add the "grease-ball" theory of round-earth geography to that list. Anything that doesn't conform to their interpretation of the Bible is suspect and in need of revision.
But let's keep going, just so you can't say I'm not addressing the arguments here:
QUOTE
The sun produces solar radiation that pushes small particles (<.1 micron) away from the sun. If the solar system was billions of years old, the solar system would have no such particles. Yet, we have such particles orbiting the sun. Thus, the solar system is young.
Before getting to the actual argument, let's find out about the creationist who put this theory forth, Dr. Harold Slusher. Slusher claims to hold an honorary D.Sc. from Indiana Christian University and a Ph.D. in geophysics from Columbia Pacific University. Indiana Christian University is a Bible College with only a 1/2 man graduate science department. CPU is an unaccredited correspondence school that recruited students with the lure of a degree "in less than a year."
And now to the argument:
This tidbit relies on the Poynting-Robertson effect, an effect the sun has on small dust particles. The continuing absorption of sunlight robs the dust particle of more and more of its angular momentum, giving it a tendency to slowly spiral into the sun as its orbit shrinks.
However, reflected sunlight (as versus absorbed light for the Poynting-Robertson effect) applies an outward force on dust particles. As a particle gets nearer to the sun, this outward radiation pressure increases faster than the force of gravity pulling the particle in. Also, what about the gravitational effect the planets would have on dust spiraling in? Many dust particles would be kicked into elliptical orbits which would greatly lengthen their time in space. Particles can also be trapped by gravitational resonances with the larger planets, and could remain in stable orbits indefinitely.
Do we need to move on?
QUOTE
Evidence from the Hubble telescope shows that Saturns rings are disintegrating. Also gravitational forces are pulling the ring particles toward Saturn. However, the rings of Saturn are very distinct and well-structured. This shows that the rings were recently formed.
Well, here's an element of truth; the latest observations lead scientists to conclude that the rings of Saturn ARE young relative to the age of Saturn and the solar system - but young meaning 100 million years or so. Again, the creationist argument usually cites the Poynting-Robertson effect here as well. However, that effect is specifically about fine dust particles, and the particles of the rings are at their smallest the size of snowballs. (Chaisson, Eric and Steve McMillan. 1993. Astronomy Today Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632, 700 pages). It is furthermore based on faulty research. In 1852 Otto Struve noted that observations of Saturn's rings over the period from 1657 to 1851 show an increase in the widths of the rings and in the width of the gap between the planet and the inner edge of the B ring. The changes are interpreted to mean that the ring system is rapidly evolving and has not yet reached an equilibrium. However, Steven I. Dutch (Dutch, Steven I. 1982. "A critique of creationist cosmology" Journal of Geological Education, vol.30, pp.27-33) has evaluated these arguments and questions the observations interpreted as changes in the ring widths and distance from Saturn [1982, pp.31-32]. Drawings by Huygens in 1659 and Cassini in 1676, according to Dutch, show the proportions of the rings essentially as they are known today. Considering the poor quality of the early telescopes and the crudity of the drawings, no significant change can be inferred with any confidence.
And some final questions: what did the carnivores eat when they came off the ark? In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)
[quote=quarkhead,Jan 15 2003, 06:45 PM]
2. There's a big difference between expressly referencing a religion and debating under the tacit assumption of that reference. Of COURSE religion comes into play here. When you are trying to prove your creationism, you are basing the entire inquiry on the Bible and Christian Creation. Once again, you are starting with the conclusion and then working backward. NOT very scientific.
[/quote]
How have I based my entire inquiry on the Bible? I have not used the Bible as a source of premises for practically any of my arguments.
[quote]
They do not, and cannot, in any scientific way, provide evidence to support creation. None of them.
[/quote]
Uh, why not? Because it doesn't conform to your conclusions?
All I'm saying in my argument about dark matter (which I believe you are referring to) is that the creation model fits with what we see.
[quote]Comets have relatively short life spans (thousands of years) since they are only a few kilometers across and a significant portion of it is shed by solar radiation each time it gets close to the sun. We have no evidence of comets being created. Thus, the universe is young.
A. we have no evidence of comets being created.
B. Therefore, the universe is young.
Anyone else see a logical problem here?
[/quote]
You left out some other premises:
- Comets were formed at the beginning of our solar system
- Comets have relatively short life spans.
Where is the flaw in the logic?
[quote]
A really good refutation of this can be found here, by Tim Thompson of JPL.
[/quote]
Interesting article. One thing that makes me wonder though is if evolutionists don't believe the magnetic field is changing, why do they also believe that the magnetic field has reversed several times? Has it stopped reversing and now static?
[quote]
This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.
[/quote]
Balanced presentation? I suppose only believing evolutionism is considered a balanced presentation.
[quote]
Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!
[/quote]
You can also buy many evolution books where evolutionary teachings have been proven as fallacies. Such as the Piltdown man, Java man, Neanderthal man, etc.
[quote]
But let's keep going, just so you can't say I'm not addressing the arguments here:
[/quote]
I'm glad you won't keep on going cause none of those things argue against the creationism theory itself.
[quote]
Particles can also be trapped by gravitational resonances with the larger planets, and could remain in stable orbits indefinitely.
[/quote]
So the balance of the force between gravitational pull of the planets/sun and the solar radiation causes stable orbits of small particles in the solar system?
[quote]
Well, here's an element of truth; the latest observations lead scientists to conclude that the rings of Saturn ARE young relative to the age of Saturn and the solar system - but young meaning 100 million years or so.
[/quote]
Even 100 million years is MUCH less than 4 billion.
[quote]
And some final questions: what did the carnivores eat when they came off the ark? In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
[/quote]
Good question, perhaps carnivores ate them off so they are now extinct.
Actually, I have another personal theory about that. I believe they were herb/omnivores before micro-evolving into carnivores.
[quote]
Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)[/quote]
Too much to address here in one shot.
2. There's a big difference between expressly referencing a religion and debating under the tacit assumption of that reference. Of COURSE religion comes into play here. When you are trying to prove your creationism, you are basing the entire inquiry on the Bible and Christian Creation. Once again, you are starting with the conclusion and then working backward. NOT very scientific.
[/quote]
How have I based my entire inquiry on the Bible? I have not used the Bible as a source of premises for practically any of my arguments.
[quote]
They do not, and cannot, in any scientific way, provide evidence to support creation. None of them.
[/quote]
Uh, why not? Because it doesn't conform to your conclusions?
All I'm saying in my argument about dark matter (which I believe you are referring to) is that the creation model fits with what we see.
[quote]Comets have relatively short life spans (thousands of years) since they are only a few kilometers across and a significant portion of it is shed by solar radiation each time it gets close to the sun. We have no evidence of comets being created. Thus, the universe is young.
A. we have no evidence of comets being created.
B. Therefore, the universe is young.
Anyone else see a logical problem here?
[/quote]
You left out some other premises:
- Comets were formed at the beginning of our solar system
- Comets have relatively short life spans.
Where is the flaw in the logic?
[quote]
A really good refutation of this can be found here, by Tim Thompson of JPL.
[/quote]
Interesting article. One thing that makes me wonder though is if evolutionists don't believe the magnetic field is changing, why do they also believe that the magnetic field has reversed several times? Has it stopped reversing and now static?
[quote]
This is done not only to highlight areas which need further study but in order to strike a balanced presentation that will not mislead the reader. Truth is the overriding goal.
[/quote]
Balanced presentation? I suppose only believing evolutionism is considered a balanced presentation.
[quote]
Today, one can buy many creationist books containing errors that should have been eliminated 20-30 years ago!
[/quote]
You can also buy many evolution books where evolutionary teachings have been proven as fallacies. Such as the Piltdown man, Java man, Neanderthal man, etc.
[quote]
But let's keep going, just so you can't say I'm not addressing the arguments here:
[/quote]
I'm glad you won't keep on going cause none of those things argue against the creationism theory itself.
[quote]
Particles can also be trapped by gravitational resonances with the larger planets, and could remain in stable orbits indefinitely.
[/quote]
So the balance of the force between gravitational pull of the planets/sun and the solar radiation causes stable orbits of small particles in the solar system?
[quote]
Well, here's an element of truth; the latest observations lead scientists to conclude that the rings of Saturn ARE young relative to the age of Saturn and the solar system - but young meaning 100 million years or so.
[/quote]
Even 100 million years is MUCH less than 4 billion.
[quote]
And some final questions: what did the carnivores eat when they came off the ark? In other words, explain how the food chain worked before the present ratios of a few predators to many prey.
[/quote]
Good question, perhaps carnivores ate them off so they are now extinct.
Actually, I have another personal theory about that. I believe they were herb/omnivores before micro-evolving into carnivores.
[quote]
Why is there the remarkable coherence among many different dating methods -- for example: radioactivity, tree rings, ice cores, corals, supernovas -- from astronomy, biology, physics, geology, chemistry and archeology? (This is not answered by saying that there is no proof of uniformity of radioactive decay. The question is why all these different methods give the same answers.)[/quote]
Too much to address here in one shot.
Logical failures aside, the assertion that we have no evidence for the origin of comets is simply wrong. You have cut and paste some poorly researched information of the kind that is endlessly regurgitated on creationist websites. This stuff was debunked long ago.
The comet thing in particular is an old creationist argument that has been discredited by some creationists themselves. We DO now have evidence for the existence of both the Oort cloud and the kuiper belt, home of both types of comets. 1000s of kuiper belt objects have been identified in just the past few years and there have been discoveries regarding the Oort cloud as well. Just do a search on any astronomy related engine and you can see for yourself.
If you go to the Answers in Genesis (creationist) webpage you can look up an article by creationist astronomer (!!??) Danny Faulkner who specifically points out these recent discoveries and suggests creationists stop making this claim. He also casually suggests that the evidence for the generation of new stars is growing (hehe).... Maybe one day he'll admit that 1 and 1 is 2.
Creationist site authors rarely listen though, this story will circulate for another 100 years via the magic of the internet....
The comet thing in particular is an old creationist argument that has been discredited by some creationists themselves. We DO now have evidence for the existence of both the Oort cloud and the kuiper belt, home of both types of comets. 1000s of kuiper belt objects have been identified in just the past few years and there have been discoveries regarding the Oort cloud as well. Just do a search on any astronomy related engine and you can see for yourself.
If you go to the Answers in Genesis (creationist) webpage you can look up an article by creationist astronomer (!!??) Danny Faulkner who specifically points out these recent discoveries and suggests creationists stop making this claim. He also casually suggests that the evidence for the generation of new stars is growing (hehe).... Maybe one day he'll admit that 1 and 1 is 2.
Creationist site authors rarely listen though, this story will circulate for another 100 years via the magic of the internet....
And all this time... somehow, the suggestion that humans are not native to only this world has not yet come up. Perhaps we are a genetic experiment with Apes of the earth and another space faring species? That KINDA works the "creationism" angle. Perhaps we were allowed free-room-and-board in the garden that we are responsible for, but that contract got distorted into "the right to establish domain over... e.g. USE for our purposes as we see fit". I have trouble with ANY human generated documentation ESPECIALLY if it was written before most people know how even read. Perhaps there is the belief that there was a sphere of water around the earth when that was the impression from how much rain was falling.... man... that's a lot of rain... must have been a whole ocean in the sky... I DO buy the atmospheric pressure change... and it makes you think about the dense cloud cover on some of the "gas giants" in the solar system... that perhaps there is a layer that is nearly a clear liquid... being somehow held to the outside of the atmosphere by the turbidity of the masses of clouds. Cant talk about the idea of growing a large brain in response to the environmental stimuli of psychotropic discoveries in the pursuit of food... that only the larger brained animals didn't kill each other off when intoxicated by their lunch of poisonous leaves... so I'll stop.
QUOTE(santasdad @ Feb 7 2003, 11:25 PM)
Logical failures aside, the assertion that we have no evidence for the origin of comets is simply wrong. You have cut and paste some poorly researched information of the kind that is endlessly regurgitated on creationist websites. This stuff was debunked long ago.
Please present your evidence that the Oort cloud exists.
WOW How did I miss this topic? This is something I have studied on in my spare time for many years.
I sum it up this way......"God (for lack of a better term Osteng) created Evolution, Darwin defined it."
Thus both evolution AND Creationism is correct most likely.
The Comets question is a good except that comets are also created during a Nova or super nova.
This is why....You see a Sun i.e. Star is a continuous fusion reaction. Hydrogen combine to create helium giving off a atomic particle in the way of energy. The helium then combines to for the next element on the periodic table and so and so on. This also explains how elements are born. When the Sun runs out of Hydrogen it will get hotter because it will be working on only more complex molecules. These require more energy. Thus it will continue to make more and more dense molecules and it will grow. Then it also starts to become more and more dense until finally it cannot handle it's own gravity at which time it collapses into a nova. Then all of the elements are converted and spewed forth into the galaxy at sub light speed. Some of these chunks pass through gas cloud's etc and their density attracts clouds of gas around them. As the chunk cools the gases begin to freeze onto its surface in the icy cold of space. Before too long you have an ice ball hurtling through space getting slowed down by every planet or sun it passes.
So anyway that is one theory on how comets are formed and why they cannot be used to judge the age of the universe. ALso there are huge gas giants out there that get blow apart by asteroid hits or novas etc. These also send large chunks of ice into the universe in all directions.
Radio carbon dating though slightly flawed in some cases is still a very reliable way to judge the age of the Earth. It is pretty much accepted in the Scientific community that the Earth is around 5-6 billion years old.
Here is a little phenomenon though. This may be here already somewhere and I missed it but here it is anyway.. Granite contains an isotope that has a very short half life. Man cannot synthesize Granite. Any other mineral or rock we pretty much can but not Granite. The reason is the isotope that decays so fast. In fact the isotope decays so fast when exposed to atmosphere that Science has concluded the Earth cooled very quickly like in a matter of minutes. Hard to dispute that one ...
Creation does not discount evolution in fact it supports it. Again some of this may have already been said I did peruse some of the posts but didnt read them all in great detail. I apologize and will have a look later when I have more time. Right now I want to try to keep this topic alive..
I realize you senior folks have already hit some of the topics we newbies want to discuss. So if we iterate too much just be kind please and let us know your thoughts quickly ...who knows maybe we will bring a perspective that hasnt been considered..
For instance I think Gen X is very close to what may be the truth. We know genetic engineering isnt that big of a deal anymore. If we know that now what would someone capable;e of interstellar travel know back then?
I dont remember it saying anywhere in any of the books that man was actually created from dust. I see where it actually alludes to Adam was made "of the Earth". Could this not mean already available genetic material was used? After all the human would have to be already adapted to the Earths Gravity, Gas mixture, temperate nature, food stuffs, water etc. It is not likely that there are two planets anywhere with exactly the same gravity for instance. SO even alien creatures would have to adapt them selves to be able to handle it. As with the gas mixture etc.
So rather you deem them God, Angels, Extra terrestrials or what have you. The fact that genetic engineering may have taken place is a mathematical possibility. I say this because of the Mytocohondrial DNA. It has been scientifically proven that all humans came from as few as 10 females or as many as 10,000. We are good at this stuff but not perfect yet..
Anyway this would indicate an almost spontaneous generation of modern man. From a very small gene pool.
Well I gotta go again but there is a beginning...Like I say if this has been covered I apologize but I would like to keep the topic alive even if we have to change the title..
GBYA
Aahz
I sum it up this way......"God (for lack of a better term Osteng
) created Evolution, Darwin defined it."Thus both evolution AND Creationism is correct most likely.
The Comets question is a good except that comets are also created during a Nova or super nova.
This is why....You see a Sun i.e. Star is a continuous fusion reaction. Hydrogen combine to create helium giving off a atomic particle in the way of energy. The helium then combines to for the next element on the periodic table and so and so on. This also explains how elements are born. When the Sun runs out of Hydrogen it will get hotter because it will be working on only more complex molecules. These require more energy. Thus it will continue to make more and more dense molecules and it will grow. Then it also starts to become more and more dense until finally it cannot handle it's own gravity at which time it collapses into a nova. Then all of the elements are converted and spewed forth into the galaxy at sub light speed. Some of these chunks pass through gas cloud's etc and their density attracts clouds of gas around them. As the chunk cools the gases begin to freeze onto its surface in the icy cold of space. Before too long you have an ice ball hurtling through space getting slowed down by every planet or sun it passes.
So anyway that is one theory on how comets are formed and why they cannot be used to judge the age of the universe. ALso there are huge gas giants out there that get blow apart by asteroid hits or novas etc. These also send large chunks of ice into the universe in all directions.
Radio carbon dating though slightly flawed in some cases is still a very reliable way to judge the age of the Earth. It is pretty much accepted in the Scientific community that the Earth is around 5-6 billion years old.
Here is a little phenomenon though. This may be here already somewhere and I missed it but here it is anyway..
Granite contains an isotope that has a very short half life. Man cannot synthesize Granite. Any other mineral or rock we pretty much can but not Granite. The reason is the isotope that decays so fast. In fact the isotope decays so fast when exposed to atmosphere that Science has concluded the Earth cooled very quickly like in a matter of minutes. Hard to dispute that one ...Creation does not discount evolution in fact it supports it. Again some of this may have already been said I did peruse some of the posts but didnt read them all in great detail. I apologize and will have a look later when I have more time. Right now I want to try to keep this topic alive..
I realize you senior folks have already hit some of the topics we newbies want to discuss. So if we iterate too much just be kind please and let us know your thoughts quickly ...who knows maybe we will bring a perspective that hasnt been considered..
For instance I think Gen X is very close to what may be the truth. We know genetic engineering isnt that big of a deal anymore. If we know that now what would someone capable;e of interstellar travel know back then?
I dont remember it saying anywhere in any of the books that man was actually created from dust. I see where it actually alludes to Adam was made "of the Earth". Could this not mean already available genetic material was used? After all the human would have to be already adapted to the Earths Gravity, Gas mixture, temperate nature, food stuffs, water etc. It is not likely that there are two planets anywhere with exactly the same gravity for instance. SO even alien creatures would have to adapt them selves to be able to handle it. As with the gas mixture etc.
So rather you deem them God, Angels, Extra terrestrials or what have you. The fact that genetic engineering may have taken place is a mathematical possibility. I say this because of the Mytocohondrial DNA. It has been scientifically proven that all humans came from as few as 10 females or as many as 10,000. We are good at this stuff but not perfect yet..
Anyway this would indicate an almost spontaneous generation of modern man. From a very small gene pool.
Well I gotta go again but there is a beginning...Like I say if this has been covered I apologize but I would like to keep the topic alive even if we have to change the title..
GBYA
Aahz
I believe in God but I also believe in evolution. I've decided to believe that God created the universe and then evolution occurred.
QUOTE
Actually, I have another personal theory about that. I believe they were herb/omnivores before micro-evolving into carnivores.
This makes no sense at all. A 40 day flood would kill just about everything, but would not be a long enough period of time for new forms of aquatic life to develop in volumes large enough to feed an herbivore population. Of course that whole argument is moot anyways since you are presupposing that micro-evolution can occur in a population of two animals which is quite impossible. Microevolution occurs across generations and still requires sufficient biodiversity, which a population of two cannot provide.Hey, lets assume your theory is right though. What DID they eat when they got off the boat? Mud? A 40 day flood would have left little else.
QUOTE(Ultimatejoe @ Feb 14 2003, 04:59 PM)
Hey, lets assume your theory is right though. What DID they eat when they got off the boat? Mud? A 40 day flood would have left little else.
The flood actually lasted much longer than 40 days. It only rained for 40 days.
Genesis 7:11. In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
7:12. And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
8:13. And it came to pass in the six hundredth and first year, in the first month, the first month, the first day of the month, the waters were dried up from off the earth; and Noah removed the covering of the ark, and looked, and, behold, the face of the ground was dry. And in the second month, on the seven and twentieth day of the month, was the earth dried.
So, it was a total of 375 days since the deluge started and when the earth was dry. Plenty of time for vegetation to grow.
Yes... AQUATIC life. You know, the stuff that DIES when the waters recede.
That idea is a paradox, in that if something made us, what made it, not that it is not right, i have seen to much to belive that it is true. On public radio international, some mirobiologist found bacteria that is over 50 million years old. Plus without anyway to prove anything on it, i think it will never make its way from being a theory.
Another point is cavemen and dinosaurs, now you could say that fossils are neat formations of rock, but they are not and also we know that cavemen existed, both of these things existed prior to 5000 10000 or so on years ago.
The oldest genetic material in a person relates to the current african people, in meaning that all of humanity was from that group of people, i would say that we all look alot different today.
carbon dateing can be off, but only by a few thousand years at best, we find stuff that is millions of years old in the earth, dinasour bones, bacteria.
plus the idea of intelligent design is designed by intelligent people, and the idea is flawed by the fact that it is conformed to prove a religious text.
In being that the idea is designed by such people who want to prove something for themselves and that is why it was made.
If everything happened in about 5000 years why are thier no reports of man with dinosaurs, or how man developed, you know all the forms of man, why is that not recorded, what happened to all of those wierd animals that people dig up in the forms of bones these days.
In order to support intelligent design it would have to conform to humankinds current state, not that of a sects purpose. I mean that it would have to support an older world then what it accepts, and in turn absorb mondern day ideas. But it cant do that of course.
In general, most every scientist you talk to or web sites that support modern day ideas would be glad to show you how the world is a very old ball of rock.
The oldest genetic material in a person relates to the current african people, in meaning that all of humanity was from that group of people, i would say that we all look alot different today.
carbon dateing can be off, but only by a few thousand years at best, we find stuff that is millions of years old in the earth, dinasour bones, bacteria.
plus the idea of intelligent design is designed by intelligent people, and the idea is flawed by the fact that it is conformed to prove a religious text.
In being that the idea is designed by such people who want to prove something for themselves and that is why it was made.
If everything happened in about 5000 years why are thier no reports of man with dinosaurs, or how man developed, you know all the forms of man, why is that not recorded, what happened to all of those wierd animals that people dig up in the forms of bones these days.
In order to support intelligent design it would have to conform to humankinds current state, not that of a sects purpose. I mean that it would have to support an older world then what it accepts, and in turn absorb mondern day ideas. But it cant do that of course.
In general, most every scientist you talk to or web sites that support modern day ideas would be glad to show you how the world is a very old ball of rock.
For me there can be no scientific theory for creationism that is consistent with the creation story of the Book of Genesis (stories, actually - there is more than one), because any scientific theory must at it's core, be based on the analysis of observed, empirical data.
Even Einstein's Theories of Relativity, seemingly conjured from the air, were based on anomalies in the thinking of the time which could not explain some observed phenomena.
Darwin's theory of evolution (nb - a 'theory' not a 'law') is, despite it's flaws, based on such empirical observation.
Any form of Genesis-based creationism starts not from the empirical data all around us, but from the book of Genesis. It does use scientific method to try to support itself, but it is not science. Therefore it should not be taught as science. End of argument.
By all means talk about the gaps and errors in Darwinian evolution - apart form anything else it is a classic case of how a scientific theory develops over time.
Theological arguments only incompatible with Darwinian evolution if one takes the Bible (or the Quran, or the Bhagavadgita, or whatever) to be the revealed word of God, rather than a particular bronze age Middle-Eastern aetiology of how the world came to be. It is perfectly possible for a scientist to believe in God and Jesus and all the rest, but to believe that the only creative act was the Big Bang. Omniscience would account for the rest.
In this respect, I think that the waters have been muddied somewhat by atheist scientists using their scientific platform or proselytise their atheism (I'm thinking of Professor Dawkins, in particular, however much I agree with him), but in their defence they are generally responding to the non-scientific science of creationists.
Even Einstein's Theories of Relativity, seemingly conjured from the air, were based on anomalies in the thinking of the time which could not explain some observed phenomena.
Darwin's theory of evolution (nb - a 'theory' not a 'law') is, despite it's flaws, based on such empirical observation.
Any form of Genesis-based creationism starts not from the empirical data all around us, but from the book of Genesis. It does use scientific method to try to support itself, but it is not science. Therefore it should not be taught as science. End of argument.
By all means talk about the gaps and errors in Darwinian evolution - apart form anything else it is a classic case of how a scientific theory develops over time.
Theological arguments only incompatible with Darwinian evolution if one takes the Bible (or the Quran, or the Bhagavadgita, or whatever) to be the revealed word of God, rather than a particular bronze age Middle-Eastern aetiology of how the world came to be. It is perfectly possible for a scientist to believe in God and Jesus and all the rest, but to believe that the only creative act was the Big Bang. Omniscience would account for the rest.
In this respect, I think that the waters have been muddied somewhat by atheist scientists using their scientific platform or proselytise their atheism (I'm thinking of Professor Dawkins, in particular, however much I agree with him), but in their defence they are generally responding to the non-scientific science of creationists.
As far as direct evidence of the Oort cloud the only thing that has come close was the detection of a massive release of water vapor around a dead star where it was not expected. At the time this was touted as possible Oort cloud evidence but calculations showed that it could only be Kuiper cloud vapor (from boiled comets) at best.
Plenty of kuiper belt comets found though, 1000s and 1000s of them in the past couple years. Creationist astronomer faulkner is right to warn his fellow creationists that this canard is falling apart.
Also, carbon dating slamming is funny. It has very little to do with evolution on the whole as its only good for a few thousand years. Using the very best and modern techniques carbon dating can be pushed back to 50,000 years. Thats not very far which is why its most useful for archeologists, not paleontologists.
RadioMETRIC dating, not radioCARBON dating is mostly used when dealing with very old bones and soil dating. THere are dozens and dozens of seperate methods all confirming the same approximate dates without the problems of carbon dating (assumption of carbon levels which are part of a living, shifting (?) carbon system)
Also, the most obvious argument for an old earth is a glance at the lack of short-duration radioactive material (less than a few million years of half-life or so)......why? If its not being generated by a current process, it radiated away long ago. Or did god just leave a huge hole in the chart when he made the earth to fool us? Pretty sneaky guy.
Plenty of kuiper belt comets found though, 1000s and 1000s of them in the past couple years. Creationist astronomer faulkner is right to warn his fellow creationists that this canard is falling apart.
Also, carbon dating slamming is funny. It has very little to do with evolution on the whole as its only good for a few thousand years. Using the very best and modern techniques carbon dating can be pushed back to 50,000 years. Thats not very far which is why its most useful for archeologists, not paleontologists.
RadioMETRIC dating, not radioCARBON dating is mostly used when dealing with very old bones and soil dating. THere are dozens and dozens of seperate methods all confirming the same approximate dates without the problems of carbon dating (assumption of carbon levels which are part of a living, shifting (?) carbon system)
Also, the most obvious argument for an old earth is a glance at the lack of short-duration radioactive material (less than a few million years of half-life or so)......why? If its not being generated by a current process, it radiated away long ago. Or did god just leave a huge hole in the chart when he made the earth to fool us? Pretty sneaky guy.
QUOTE(Jaime @ Sep 12 2002, 02:17 PM)
Don't ask me how or why I know this, but apes and humans are the only species known to pleasure themselves sexually.
Hi Jaime.....I just started reading this thread. I know you said this months ago but I had to comment! I just about bust a gut!
I would posit that dogs have this unique "ability" as well. Just think dog+leg and you'll get my drift....
ok, back to my reading.
Creation and evolution both qualify as theory in every sense of the word. Unless you dont bother to define it and let presumption do all the work. I brought this post over from the education forum because Jamie closed that down. The main difference between theology and natural science is that one works from principle (moral more then mental) and the other works to principle (theory). Both evolution and creation are conclusions and qualify as theologies.
Following the Evidence
Printer Friendly Version
Gregory Koukl
Can the argument really be made that the Christian view is less biased than your average scientist's or historian's?
How open are you or what is it that compels you to make particular decisions about your beliefs? Two or three weeks ago I talked about a book I was reading called The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, and he made the case that morality is a result of the process of evolution. I think he's wrong.
The author makes the point that the world does seem designed. This is why he feels comfortable using design and function language to describe the process of naturalistic evolution. If a thing has a function, it was meant to accomplish a particular end; and if it's meant for or designed for something, there is an intent of how it is to be used, or an intent involved in what it is to accomplish. Intent is a function of mind. You can't have design without intent, and you can't have intent without mind. That seems to suggest that every time you use design language to describe the universe, you're really talking about a mind behind the universe. Many people call that Mother Nature, which is no mind at all, but just accident and natural selection.
This is what Robert Wright believes. My question is, if the universe looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non- intentional explanation for the so-called design features, rather than saying that somebody, someone, designed it? He essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate in itself to explain the features we find in the natural universe, as is natural selection. I don't think it's a toss-up, though. I don't think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it. But even if I were to grant that, or say, "Yes, natural selection can explain this, and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect--when I say "empirically equivalent," I mean the evidence equally justifies either one..."
Presumption and Evolution's mythos
Creationism is a valid theory based on the evidence, there may be many more but the thread is only supposed to be examining two of them. I am convinced if the schools were teaching real science this conversation would be unnecassary. We would just link to a school textbook and work our way to an informed conclusion, the problem is the textbook is the conclusion. I say run the creationist and the evolutionist out of town on a rail, tared and featherd and teach the kids real science. Lets teach them how to reason systematicly if thats not unconstitutional
Following the Evidence
Printer Friendly Version
Gregory Koukl
Can the argument really be made that the Christian view is less biased than your average scientist's or historian's?
How open are you or what is it that compels you to make particular decisions about your beliefs? Two or three weeks ago I talked about a book I was reading called The Moral Animal by Robert Wright, and he made the case that morality is a result of the process of evolution. I think he's wrong.
The author makes the point that the world does seem designed. This is why he feels comfortable using design and function language to describe the process of naturalistic evolution. If a thing has a function, it was meant to accomplish a particular end; and if it's meant for or designed for something, there is an intent of how it is to be used, or an intent involved in what it is to accomplish. Intent is a function of mind. You can't have design without intent, and you can't have intent without mind. That seems to suggest that every time you use design language to describe the universe, you're really talking about a mind behind the universe. Many people call that Mother Nature, which is no mind at all, but just accident and natural selection.
This is what Robert Wright believes. My question is, if the universe looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non- intentional explanation for the so-called design features, rather than saying that somebody, someone, designed it? He essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate in itself to explain the features we find in the natural universe, as is natural selection. I don't think it's a toss-up, though. I don't think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it. But even if I were to grant that, or say, "Yes, natural selection can explain this, and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect--when I say "empirically equivalent," I mean the evidence equally justifies either one..."
Presumption and Evolution's mythos
Creationism is a valid theory based on the evidence, there may be many more but the thread is only supposed to be examining two of them. I am convinced if the schools were teaching real science this conversation would be unnecassary. We would just link to a school textbook and work our way to an informed conclusion, the problem is the textbook is the conclusion. I say run the creationist and the evolutionist out of town on a rail, tared and featherd and teach the kids real science. Lets teach them how to reason systematicly if thats not unconstitutional
How many times does it have to be said that evolution is *NOT* theology? Evolution is *NOT* atheism?
This short little critique of Wright's book, is either full of mistakes or doesn't really pertain to evolution:
1. Universe crap-has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.
2. Natural selection pertains to living organisms, not stellar bodies.
3. Those two statements are not both "empirically equivilant": Provide evidence of a supernaturally created universe, and remember: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
Sorry, but nope. All the "creationist" evidence I've ever seen, consists of faulty arguments against evolution. Creation must stand on it's own legs to be a valid theory, it also must explain the evidence we have better then evolution-it doesn't.
If you are convinced of this, then why do you want psuedoscience (creation) introduced into schools? You do know that *not* one scientific, peer-reviewed journal has published any papers in support of creationism, right? If you are going to assert a conspiracy, please provide evidence and not veiled assertions.
You don't understand science if you think that evolution isn't part of science. If we are going to teach one creation story, then we will have to teach them all.
The hypocritical statement in your above quoted post is "work our way to an informed conclusion, the problem is the textbook is the conclusion". Evolution is the informed conclusion-you just happen to disagree with it. I'm sorry if you feel your Christianity is threatened by the improbabilities of a literal genesis, but does that mean that the public schools should teach lies to our children?
I don't think so.
This short little critique of Wright's book, is either full of mistakes or doesn't really pertain to evolution:
QUOTE
This is what Robert Wright believes. My question is, if the universe looks designed, why do we opt for a naturalistic, non- intentional explanation for the so-called design features, rather than saying that somebody, someone, designed it? He essentially admits that a design explanation is as adequate in itself to explain the features we find in the natural universe, as is natural selection. I don't think it's a toss-up, though. I don't think natural selection is really capable of explaining the universe as we find it. But even if I were to grant that, or say, "Yes, natural selection can explain this, and supernatural design can explain it. We have two empirically equivalent explanations for the same effect--when I say "empirically equivalent," I mean the evidence equally justifies either one..."
1. Universe crap-has nothing to do with the validity of evolution.
2. Natural selection pertains to living organisms, not stellar bodies.
3. Those two statements are not both "empirically equivilant": Provide evidence of a supernaturally created universe, and remember: Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
QUOTE
Creationism is a valid theory based on the evidence, there may be many more but the thread is only supposed to be examining two of them.
Sorry, but nope. All the "creationist" evidence I've ever seen, consists of faulty arguments against evolution. Creation must stand on it's own legs to be a valid theory, it also must explain the evidence we have better then evolution-it doesn't.
QUOTE
I am convinced if the schools were teaching real science this conversation would be unnecassary.
If you are convinced of this, then why do you want psuedoscience (creation) introduced into schools? You do know that *not* one scientific, peer-reviewed journal has published any papers in support of creationism, right? If you are going to assert a conspiracy, please provide evidence and not veiled assertions.
QUOTE
We would just link to a school textbook and work our way to an informed conclusion, the problem is the textbook is the conclusion. I say run the creationist and the evolutionist out of town on a rail, tared and featherd and teach the kids real science. Lets teach them how to reason systematicly if thats not unconstitutional
You don't understand science if you think that evolution isn't part of science. If we are going to teach one creation story, then we will have to teach them all.
The hypocritical statement in your above quoted post is "work our way to an informed conclusion, the problem is the textbook is the conclusion". Evolution is the informed conclusion-you just happen to disagree with it. I'm sorry if you feel your Christianity is threatened by the improbabilities of a literal genesis, but does that mean that the public schools should teach lies to our children?
I don't think so.
[quote]we know that cavemen existed, both of these things existed prior to 5000 10000 or so on years ago.[/quote]
you know no such thing. You believe this because its what has been pounded into your brain and you've bought into the hype...the charts...the assumptions of science.
[quote]i would say that we all look alot different today.[/quote]
again...pure speculation.
[quote]carbon dateing can be off, but only by a few thousand years at best, we find stuff that is millions of years old in the earth, dinasour bones, bacteria.[/quote]
there are huuuuge problems with the methods of any kinds of dating tecniques. C-14 is one of the least accurate ones used. There have been studies done on it and it was easily shown to be a flawed method. Scientist took a seal and mummified it for 30 years, then carbon-14 tested it and came up with an age of 4,600 years old. And a freshly killed seal was tested w/ c-14 and the date given of its death was 1,300 years ago. C-14 testing on the bones of a saber-toothed tiger were shown to "prove" the age of the tiger to be 28,000 years old....but that shows a discrepancy with the "fact" that the geological date of these tigers is 100,000-to 1,000,000 years old.
Carbon dating is too unreliable to be used as proof for any theory....but they sure do use it with zeal. They disregard the contradictory testing and only use the favorable results to "prove" their ideas.
There are big problems with radio metric dating too. From the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 73 July 15, 1968 is says: "Lava rocks formed in 1800 & 1801 in Hawaii, dated by the potassium-argon method, showed the age of formation to be 160 million to 3 billion years ago."
And Lunar soil was dated by 4 different rm methods, wach giving different answers. 4.6 billion, 5.4 billion, 4.8 billion and 8.2 billion years. And Lunar rocks were shown to have 2.3 billion as the age. 4 radiometric datings of the same soil giving 4 different answers. Call it accurate if you want but if we cant get an accurate date from rocks & soil that we know the age of then how can we be confident using these methods on the rocks & soil that we dont know the age of?
In the 80's there was a science show called "Man Alive" The canadians here ought to recognize it. On one of the shows, a Biologist by the name of michael denton was interviewd. Denton who is an unbeliever, stated that he was skeptical of both Creation and Evolution. The interviewer asked him what the chief impact of Darwins book had been, Denton said that the chief end of the book "had to have been to make atheism possible or at least respectable". Here is an answer by someone who is not biased either way against either side..but looked at the evidence itself, without all of the assumptions and gained a healthy skepticism from what he observed.
[quote]plus the idea of intelligent design is designed by intelligent people, and the idea is flawed by the fact that it is conformed to prove a religious text.[/quote]
Such bias! And right out in plain sight too!
It is flawed because it supports religious text? So you start out with the basic opinion that religious text is false....so the theory of intelligent design must be false too...well what about the conforming of carbon dating results to support scientific theory? Let me guess.....its not flawed when evolutionist scientists do it...only when creation scientists do it, right?
[quote]In being that the idea is designed by such people who want to prove something for themselves and that is why it was made.[/quote]
I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, lol!
[quote]If everything happened in about 5000 years [/quote]
firstly....no one uses 5,000 as an absolute number....it could be as high as 10,000, according to YEC's.
[quote]why are thier no reports of man with dinosaurs,[/quote]
ever heard of the tuba city tracks? They have found dinosaur tracks with a man's footprint overlapping it. Why does science believe its a hoax? Simple....because it goes against the evolution theory. But the prints have not been proven to be a hoax, they are just ignored.
[quote]or how man developed, you know all the forms of man, why is that not recorded,[/quote]
ermmm....because man was created fully formed, thats why
[quote]what happened to all of those wierd animals that people dig up in the forms of bones these days.[/quote]
creation science doesnt disagree with natural selection and how some animals become extinct.
[quote]In order to support intelligent design it would have to conform to humankinds current state, not that of a sects purpose. [/quote]
you've got that completely backwards. You start with an intelligent Designer and we conform to that Designer...the Designer doesnt conform to us and our ideas.
[quote]In general, most every scientist you talk to or web sites that support modern day ideas would be glad to show you how the world is a very old ball of rock.[/quote]
funny....the science websites I hang out at tell me a completely different story
you know no such thing. You believe this because its what has been pounded into your brain and you've bought into the hype...the charts...the assumptions of science.
[quote]i would say that we all look alot different today.[/quote]
again...pure speculation.
[quote]carbon dateing can be off, but only by a few thousand years at best, we find stuff that is millions of years old in the earth, dinasour bones, bacteria.[/quote]
there are huuuuge problems with the methods of any kinds of dating tecniques. C-14 is one of the least accurate ones used. There have been studies done on it and it was easily shown to be a flawed method. Scientist took a seal and mummified it for 30 years, then carbon-14 tested it and came up with an age of 4,600 years old. And a freshly killed seal was tested w/ c-14 and the date given of its death was 1,300 years ago. C-14 testing on the bones of a saber-toothed tiger were shown to "prove" the age of the tiger to be 28,000 years old....but that shows a discrepancy with the "fact" that the geological date of these tigers is 100,000-to 1,000,000 years old.
Carbon dating is too unreliable to be used as proof for any theory....but they sure do use it with zeal. They disregard the contradictory testing and only use the favorable results to "prove" their ideas.
There are big problems with radio metric dating too. From the Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 73 July 15, 1968 is says: "Lava rocks formed in 1800 & 1801 in Hawaii, dated by the potassium-argon method, showed the age of formation to be 160 million to 3 billion years ago."
And Lunar soil was dated by 4 different rm methods, wach giving different answers. 4.6 billion, 5.4 billion, 4.8 billion and 8.2 billion years. And Lunar rocks were shown to have 2.3 billion as the age. 4 radiometric datings of the same soil giving 4 different answers. Call it accurate if you want but if we cant get an accurate date from rocks & soil that we know the age of then how can we be confident using these methods on the rocks & soil that we dont know the age of?
In the 80's there was a science show called "Man Alive" The canadians here ought to recognize it. On one of the shows, a Biologist by the name of michael denton was interviewd. Denton who is an unbeliever, stated that he was skeptical of both Creation and Evolution. The interviewer asked him what the chief impact of Darwins book had been, Denton said that the chief end of the book "had to have been to make atheism possible or at least respectable". Here is an answer by someone who is not biased either way against either side..but looked at the evidence itself, without all of the assumptions and gained a healthy skepticism from what he observed.
[quote]plus the idea of intelligent design is designed by intelligent people, and the idea is flawed by the fact that it is conformed to prove a religious text.[/quote]
Such bias! And right out in plain sight too!
It is flawed because it supports religious text? So you start out with the basic opinion that religious text is false....so the theory of intelligent design must be false too...well what about the conforming of carbon dating results to support scientific theory? Let me guess.....its not flawed when evolutionist scientists do it...only when creation scientists do it, right? [quote]In being that the idea is designed by such people who want to prove something for themselves and that is why it was made.[/quote]
I'd say this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, lol!
[quote]If everything happened in about 5000 years [/quote]
firstly....no one uses 5,000 as an absolute number....it could be as high as 10,000, according to YEC's.
[quote]why are thier no reports of man with dinosaurs,[/quote]
ever heard of the tuba city tracks? They have found dinosaur tracks with a man's footprint overlapping it. Why does science believe its a hoax? Simple....because it goes against the evolution theory. But the prints have not been proven to be a hoax, they are just ignored.
[quote]or how man developed, you know all the forms of man, why is that not recorded,[/quote]
ermmm....because man was created fully formed, thats why
[quote]what happened to all of those wierd animals that people dig up in the forms of bones these days.[/quote]
creation science doesnt disagree with natural selection and how some animals become extinct.
[quote]In order to support intelligent design it would have to conform to humankinds current state, not that of a sects purpose. [/quote]
you've got that completely backwards. You start with an intelligent Designer and we conform to that Designer...the Designer doesnt conform to us and our ideas.
[quote]In general, most every scientist you talk to or web sites that support modern day ideas would be glad to show you how the world is a very old ball of rock.[/quote]
funny....the science websites I hang out at tell me a completely different story
QUOTE
there are huuuuge problems with the methods of any kinds of dating tecniques. C-14 is one of the least accurate ones used. There have been studies done on it and it was easily shown to be a flawed method.
Except for believing what a religious text says? What's wrong with ice cores and tree rings except for the fact they agree with Carbon 14 dating? It's almost impossible to change the date you get from carbon dating. One experiment showed that QUOTE
a half-life change of a small fraction of a percent was detected when beryllium-7 was subjected to 270,000 atmospheres of pressure, equivalent to depths greater than 450 miles inside the Earth
QUOTE
you know no such thing. You believe this because its what has been pounded into your brain and you've bought into the hype...the charts...the assumptions of science.
If it had a skeleton, cave art and tools it's safe to say it existed. QUOTE
plus the idea of intelligent design is designed by intelligent people, and the idea is flawed by the fact that it is conformed to prove a religious text.
Not to mention it's a circular argument. If you find with science that something is unexplained and only God could have done it then you must apply the same test to God's existence, It would be almost impossible to create God so only another God could create God and that God would need to be create by another God and God C would need to be created by God D. That makes no sense. 
I don't understand why a galaxy cannot spin around very fast. The potential well that keeps the galaxy together is thought to be a blackhole: and object of immense "gravitational pull." Put it this way, around a black hole the gravity is strong enough at the so called "event horizon" to keep photons orbiting around it in a circle. Mind you, photons are the fastest moving "object" know to man.
The only thing that is being pounded into my head is the weird stuff going on in the world in regards to natrual science.
Creation theroy was created at a christian college. It does not take into account any other religous groups ideas of multiple creators/origin. And i guess now everything science has ever strived for is a lie, evolution has no facts even though it can be forced, dinosaurs walked with man, all dateing methods are false, the fossil record is a pact of lies, and nothing science has ever found about the origins of the universe and or human evolution all of that is just some great lie with no evidence. The earth is flat, center of the universe, and that is that. If it makes anyone feel better to be that way that is great, science will stay its course and you can believe what you want, because this holds no reason to debate anymore.
Creation theroy was created at a christian college. It does not take into account any other religous groups ideas of multiple creators/origin. And i guess now everything science has ever strived for is a lie, evolution has no facts even though it can be forced, dinosaurs walked with man, all dateing methods are false, the fossil record is a pact of lies, and nothing science has ever found about the origins of the universe and or human evolution all of that is just some great lie with no evidence. The earth is flat, center of the universe, and that is that. If it makes anyone feel better to be that way that is great, science will stay its course and you can believe what you want, because this holds no reason to debate anymore.
here is a nice link on why most scientists think the world is an old ball of rock, please read, i am only going to put up this one link, try not to take it as propaganda by godless scientists.
link 1
link 1
QUOTE
Such bias! And right out in plain sight too! It is flawed because it supports religious text? So you start out with the basic opinion that religious text is false....so the theory of intelligent design must be false too...well what about the conforming of carbon dating results to support scientific theory? Let me guess.....its not flawed when evolutionist scientists do it...only when creation scientists do it, right?
The premise of ID comes from a religious viewpoint, which is bias. It also doesn't have any support for it, or any scientifically peer-reviewed journals investigating the matter. It is in fact, psuedoscience.
Evolution on the other hand, isn't part of a religion (despite what you might believe), and has a long body of data to support it. In fact, as I've said before, everytime you get a flu shot, you are validating evolutionary theory. I can already hear your argument now, if you are going to say something about a difference between micro and macro, then please inform us what mechanism prevents microevolution from becoming macroevolution, given enough time?
QUOTE(nileriver @ Jul 21 2003, 11:58 AM)
try not to take it as propaganda by godless scientists.
hehehehe....nileriver, are you trying to tell me that they do believe in God?
If they do not believe in God, then that would make them Godless, wouldnt it? So why wouldnt you want me to take them that way if that is indeed what they say they are? *confused*
oh wait a minute.....you were using saaaarcasm!
ok, I getcha now
I'll toss in my two cents...
Creationism is not a science or even a valid scientific theory. The National Academy of Sciences also had something to say about creationism, coming to the conclusion that
It is simply a belief supported only in faith through interpretation of religious texts.
Creationism is not a science or even a valid scientific theory. The National Academy of Sciences also had something to say about creationism, coming to the conclusion that
QUOTE
Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.
It is simply a belief supported only in faith through interpretation of religious texts.
QUOTE
The premise of ID comes from a religious viewpoint, which is bias. It also doesn't have any support for it, or any scientifically peer-reviewed journals investigating the matter. It is in fact, psuedoscience.
then why do some non-religious scientists, like Michael Denton, disbelieve the theory of Evolution? Do you discount his opinions for the sole reason that he doesnt support the evolution theory?...becasue if you do, then you are doing the same thing you accuse us of...you are letting your prejudices against creationism cloud you ability to look at the evidence. What bias does Denton have, do you think?
QUOTE
Evolution on the other hand, isn't part of a religion (despite what you might believe),
Please show why you believe this.
QUOTE
and has a long body of data to support it.
support but not prove it, right? If it were proven it would be classified as so.....I love how people who believe the evolution theory cannot escape that fact. The fact is that evolution is merely a fine-sounding story and nothing more....because true science is all about what can be proved. Your "theory" is no more "provable" than mine.......and you point fingers saying "where is your proof?" yet rely on the speculation of scientists to explain how we got here! That is not very logical.
So, where is your proof? Show it to me. You cant sway with me carbon dating to "prove" the age of the earth because carbon dating has been proven to be unreliable. You cant rely on the fossils record because 95 percent of the fossil record is comprised of marine invertebrates, which are represented by greater and more complex forms of fossils than today. which goes against the principles of evolution. Your own charts belie your beliefs!!! Imagine that you have a burning desire to find out where snails came from. You search all the way through the fossil evidence and go back to the first abundant fossils found in the Cambrian layer (which has been guestimated at 500 million years old) and what do you find? Well you find out that snails come from snails. And where did the most complex invertebrates, members of the squid and octopus groups, the cephalopods, come from? Well...you will find out that squids come from "squids" In fact, the first squids known as the nautiloids, are more impressive than most modern forms. And of course, trilobites only come from trilobites. Theres no evidence that they evolved from or into anything else. The missing links between then and now are still missing. But the evolution theory insists that here we are.....evolved from a lower life form. Amazing!
Let me ask you meatros, how do you explain polystratic fossils? Some polystratic tree fossils have been found upright extending down through many layers that are assumed to be more than 20 million years of 'evolutionary time'. How idoes science explain that? Any ideas, hmmm?
QUOTE
In fact, as I've said before, everytime you get a flu shot, you are validating evolutionary theory.
how so?
QUOTE
I'll toss in my two cents...
Creationism is not a science or even a valid scientific theory.
Creationism is not a science or even a valid scientific theory.
True science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation. The idea that natural evolutionary processes can account for the origin of all living species has never been and never will be established as fact. The origins of life can neither be observed nor reproduced in the lab. By definiton, true science can give us no knowledge whatsoever about where we came from or how we got here.
QUOTE
The National Academy of Sciences also had something to say about creationism, coming to the conclusion that Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.
again....how has science tested the origins of life and proven their theory to be correct? They have never been able to cause life to spring up from non-life....so their statement is rife with hipocrisy.
btw....I liked your old avatar better....twas more fun to look at
QUOTE(nileriver @ Jul 21 2003, 02:08 PM)
umm....would you mind just posting the basic premises here rather than make me go spend a bunch of time wading through all of that?
If I were to give you links to a creationism website that droned on and on (in your opinion)....honestly...would you really take the time to read it all? Just state the premise and give the link so I can validate your source. Thats all I need, thanks
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 21 2003 @ 02:01 PM)
support but not prove it, right? If it were proven it would be classified as so.....I love how people who believe the evolution theory cannot escape that fact. The fact is that evolution is merely a fine-sounding story and nothing more....because true science is all about what can be proved.
You are confusing evolution and the theory of evolution, valley. That evolution occurs is a fact, the theory of evolution is the theory about what drives that process. There's a difference and you would benefit from acknowledging it.
I might also point out from the beginning of this topic...
QUOTE
I have started a thread where he can post the scientific basis for creationism. Of course anyone is welcome to help/challenge his or anyone elses scientific discussion of creationism. And remember, this is not a discussion of how evolution is wrong but of how creationism is right.
That being said, I might also refer you back to my first post in this debate only minutes ago.
how would you do that and how long would it take, the most simple things that count as life, such as foam collecting by an beach could take who knows how long to turn into what, a simple thing not even as complex as a very low level
bacteria on the 200 nano level. Let alone turn into a germ!!!!
Some of the proof you are asking for would require the earth to be the lab and a study to sit and watch foam or related chemical reaction for upwards of millions of years to a week.
Have you ever looked into sea life that lives by volcanic activity. It is totally alien to anything on earth and is a great marvel to study, being the environment it lives in is hostile to all other known life.
bacteria on the 200 nano level. Let alone turn into a germ!!!!
Some of the proof you are asking for would require the earth to be the lab and a study to sit and watch foam or related chemical reaction for upwards of millions of years to a week.
Have you ever looked into sea life that lives by volcanic activity. It is totally alien to anything on earth and is a great marvel to study, being the environment it lives in is hostile to all other known life.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Jul 21 2003, 02:18 PM)
I might also point out from the beginning of this topic...
That being said, I might also refer you back to my first post in this debate only minutes ago.
QUOTE
I have started a thread where he can post the scientific basis for creationism. Of course anyone is welcome to help/challenge his or anyone elses scientific discussion of creationism. And remember, this is not a discussion of how evolution is wrong but of how creationism is right.
That being said, I might also refer you back to my first post in this debate only minutes ago.
so basically....you want me to post the scientific evidence for creationism, but you do not want the scientific "evidence" for evolution challenged, is that correct? Sticking true to thread integrity, are ya? ok then..I will start my own thread, so there
QUOTE(nileriver @ Jul 21 2003, 02:22 PM)
how would you do that and how long would it take, the most simple things that count as life, such as foam collecting by an beach could take who knows how long to turn into what, a simple thing not even as complex as a very low level bacteria on the 200 nano level. Let alone turn into a germ!!!!
Some of the proof you are asking for would require the earth to be the lab and a study to sit and watch foam or related chemical reaction for upwards of millions of years to a week.
Some of the proof you are asking for would require the earth to be the lab and a study to sit and watch foam or related chemical reaction for upwards of millions of years to a week.
well science purports that non-life made the leap to life...I'm not the one who came up with such a wild idea so please excuse me for asking for a little bit of proof before I jump on that believing bandwagon
so in light of it all, evolution facts cannot be taken, on the base a man does not just poof into existence. I bet you giving enough time, science could do that for you, i can even see it. The simple thing to that is it would not prove evolution, it would just prove we could make a way to poof a man into being, what age would you like could be a button
I believe the ability to think scientifically is a trait just like singing is a trait. Some people just do not have the ability to carry a tune. I am not sure I have a better explanation as to why people can not recognize evolution as something thing that has happened, is happening, and will happen in the future. I see evolution all around me. You do not need fossils to understand evolution.
Is it a known learning disability?
Is it a known learning disability?
QUOTE
True science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation.
Which means creation is out of there... Evolution, change of a species, can be reproduced not only by experimentation but also by reproduction. Evolution is facilitated by independent assortment and mutations in DNA that do exist and are real. (I'd like to know the difference between macro and micro evolution)I think the fossil evidence supports evolution. for example
QUOTE
ichthyosaurs and porpoises are never (not once!) found in the same layers; crabs and trilobites are never found in the same layers; small pterosaurs and equal-sized modern birds and bats are never found in the same layers.
Why could two animals the should have existed at the same (if you believe creation) never show up at the same time in the fossil record? (Valley, Why doesn't carbon dating work?)
The topic already exists in the Science and Technology Forum if you'd like to join it there, but yes I am sticking to the integrity of this topic. This particular debate was established to discuss the merits of creationism as a science, of which it has none. While you seem to have a disdain for actually researching the links provided in a debate, you might take a look at those I provided in my first posting making a concise comparison between creationism and scientific theories and the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences. It shouldn't take you more than 5 or 10 minutes to read through it, and I even quoted a key part of their conclusion for you to read without referencing their site directly. 
By the way: Please refrain from double posting. You have a 12 hour window to edit your post rather than post back to back. Thanks!
Edited to add:
It's a similar case when comparing creationism to abiogensis. Abiogenesis makes a claim based principally on chemistry and biology rather than "supernatural" means which can be neither observed, verified or tested. Creationism/ID lacks any real data with which to work for it to be a valid theory or science.
By the way: Please refrain from double posting. You have a 12 hour window to edit your post rather than post back to back. Thanks!
Edited to add:
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 21 2003 @ 02:35 PM)
well science purports that non-life made the leap to life...I'm not the one who came up with such a wild idea so please excuse me for asking for a little bit of proof before I jump on that believing bandwagon
QUOTE(Rancid Uncle @ Jul 21 2003 @ 02:38 PM)
QUOTE
True science deals with what can be observed and reproduced by experimentation.
Which means creation is out of there... It's a similar case when comparing creationism to abiogensis. Abiogenesis makes a claim based principally on chemistry and biology rather than "supernatural" means which can be neither observed, verified or tested. Creationism/ID lacks any real data with which to work for it to be a valid theory or science.
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Jul 21 2003, 02:39 PM)
The topic already exists in the Science and Technology Forum if you'd like to join it there, but yes I am sticking to the integrity of this topic. This particular debate was established to discuss the merits of creationism as a science, of which it has none. While you seem to have a disdain for actually researching the links provided in a debate, you might take a look at those I provided in my first posting making a concise comparison between creationism and scientific theories and the conclusions of the National Academy of Sciences. It shouldn't take you more than 5 or 10 minutes to read through it, and I even quoted a key part of their conclusion for you to read without referencing their site directly.
By the way: Please refrain from double posting. You have a 12 hour window to edit your post rather than post back to back. Thanks!
By the way: Please refrain from double posting. You have a 12 hour window to edit your post rather than post back to back. Thanks!
Who is this "you" you are addressing, Abs?
The post was directed at valley in response to her comment:
There were other postings in the time it took me to type out my response. Sorry for the confusion, Jaime, everybody else.
Edited for proper gender identification
QUOTE(valley @ Jul 21 2003 @ 02:31 PM)
so basically....you want me to post the scientific evidence for creationism, but you do not want the scientific "evidence" for evolution challenged, is that correct? Sticking true to thread integrity, are ya? ok then..I will start my own thread, so there
There were other postings in the time it took me to type out my response. Sorry for the confusion, Jaime, everybody else.
Edited for proper gender identification
QUOTE(Abs like Jesus @ Jul 21 2003, 02:39 PM)
By the way: Please refrain from double posting. You have a 12 hour window to edit your post rather than post back to back. Thanks!
sorry bout that. I figured I was talking to you in one post and talking to nileriver in another one.
let me get this straight so I am not reading you wrong....when I post and someone responds to me...I should then go back to an old post and edit it to respond to a different person? I'm not sure I understand the reasoning for this. *confused*
EDIT: please disregard my comments here. It has been explained to me in a pm and makes sense now
QUOTE
then why do some non-religious scientists, like Michael Denton, disbelieve the theory of Evolution? Do you discount his opinions for the sole reason that he doesnt support the evolution theory?...becasue if you do, then you are doing the same thing you accuse us of...you are letting your prejudices against creationism cloud you ability to look at the evidence. What bias does Denton have, do you think?
Why hasn't Denton published in any peer-reviewed science journals? I know some atheists who don't accept the TOE, that doesn't make them right. On a side note, Denton engages in the typical Creationist PRATT arguments. Check out this and this site.
QUOTE
Please show why you believe this.
Taken from:
QUOTE
Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship.
The life or condition of a person in a religious order.
A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader.
A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.
Because it doesn't satisfy the definition of "religion". Also, if TOE is a religion, so is gravity and so is anything that requires an acceptance of evidence. In the end, it's just a baseless assertion.
QUOTE
support but not prove it, right? If it were proven it would be classified as so.....I love how people who believe the evolution theory cannot escape that fact. The fact is that evolution is merely a fine-sounding story and nothing more....because true science is all about what can be proved. Your "theory" is no more "provable" than mine.......and you point fingers saying "where is your proof?" yet rely on the speculation of scientists to explain how we got here! That is not very logical.
Proofs are for math, not science. Please do not tell me that you expect a theory to become a "law" or any nonsense like that. If you think theories become laws, then you have a bad understanding of science.
QUOTE
So, where is your proof? Show it to me. You cant sway with me carbon dating to "prove" the age of the earth because carbon dating has been proven to be unreliable.
B.S., when properly applied, the dating methods of science are very accurate.
Incidentally, if you do not accept viruses as evidence, I have to ask: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macro (aside from time).
QUOTE(Meatros @ Jul 21 2003, 04:45 PM)
I have to ask: What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from becoming macro (aside from time).
well, I cannot answer you this. I suspect that the only reason you asked was because you know that the answer requires more than I am able to give from my own knowledge (i'm no scientist). But if, on the odd chance that you really interested then please refer to this older, but still useful, discussion:
http://www.arn.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-...1-t-001569.html
I hope the information here helps you in finding an answer to your question.
I am sorry that I could not be of more help to you. and careful of double-posting, hon. I hear its frowned upon here
They all sound like that guy from the book, that was weird to say the least. I tried to keep reading, but it was the same question over and over, that micro over time cannot produce macro. The second law was used a lot two. I forget that the earth has a warm core and lots of energy moveing about sometime, that and the sun, seasons. The entire atmosphere, and that the world itself was not a single hot block of one type of chemical to slowly cool in the void of space. can someone say zygote. They never allow for environment to factor into anything either. Or to put it another way that life has to be blind to the environment, which makes no sense for the hunters and plant eaters of this world. Or how humans have the nifty ability to be both. Just a million little things to deal with. I guess i shall have to go and find a nifty link about insect evolution in island chains or something like austrailia to the rest of the world.
The more i get into it the more i find a its just a list of empty attacks really, nothing more.
The more i get into it the more i find a its just a list of empty attacks really, nothing more.
Nileriver, please don't post two posts in a row. If you were the last person that posted, you can go in and edit your post. The edit window is twelve hours.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.