NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.samharris.org/animations/cc.mov

Takes a while to load, but worth watching.

Those stats are fucking sad.

The sad thing is the 44% who want creation science taught exclusively. If you teach a teacher to teach with as little bias as possible, Creation Science can be taught. But it must be taught along with evolution. And the emphasis on "different interpretations of data" is key. Creation science can not have evangelizism tagging along with it. My problem is that the origins of man is not that important, no one was there to see it. All we can do is study the world as it is today, and as it was described/recorded in the past

Oh yeah and the whole public schools crap should be left up to the States, not the big government. Why? Our founding fathers never said who should take care of public schools, so it should be the states problem. It makes public schools more personalized to the needs of the state.

I gotta move somewhere intelligent

I don't really like that animation - i thought it was a bit crude. There are many convincing reasons why not to teach 'creation science' in schools, but being unable to explain why god causes small pox isn't really one of them. It just ends up looking like a personal attack on the religion itself which is counterproductive. Most anti- creationists have a deep respect for religion but merely believe that teaching it as science is harmful and contrary to the scientific methiod.

Having said that, those statistics are extremely scary. Any ideas if they are true or not?
Only 28% believe in evolution? Bloody hell.
And 62% want 'creation science' taught alongside evolution. That means that 62% of Americans have no idea how science works. That it isn't about giving other views a fair showing; it's empirical and testable. You don't just pick any wacko hypothesis and teach that if it can only be defended by biased research and public opinion.

That it isn't about giving other views a fair showing; it's empirical and testable. You don't just pick any wacko hypothesis and teach that if it can only be defended by biased research and public opinion.

*cough* *cough* Ahem...

The sad thing is the 44% who want creation science taught exclusively. If you teach a teacher to teach with as little bias as possible, Creation Science can be taught. But it must be taught along with evolution. And the emphasis on "different interpretations of data" is key. Creation science can not have evangelizism tagging along with it. My problem is that the origins of man is not that important, no one was there to see it. All we can do is study the world as it is today, and as it was described/recorded in the past

Oh yeah and the whole public schools crap should be left up to the States, not the big government. Why? Our founding fathers never said who should take care of public schools, so it should be the states problem. It makes public schools more personalized to the needs of the state.
the problem is creationism is NOT SCIENCE ... it does not follow the scientic process. if it is not science it should not be taught in a science class ... it should be taught where it belongs ... theology (I am all for the teaching of religous ideas but where they belong)

Actually creation Science is a theory, as is evolution.

The problem is so many of you say that creationism is not science. It stems from the religious belief that something made all of this. It is as much The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena. as evolution is. Now, when the creation scientists shoves evangelizm and "hell and damnation" down your throat, sure that isn't creation science. And sure when the scientist says "because the bible said so" that isn't creation science either. But when a scientist says "I look at this data and interpret as this, and I check it with this, this, and this." heck whether he is a christian, evolutionist, or athiest, he is backing up he reason for interpretting that data that way.

Of course, saying I believe creationism because the Bible said so can also work since Josh McDowell supposedly proved the incongruity of the Bible.

Actually Creation Science is a theory, as is evolution.
Theories are not the complete process ... do you need me to find a link the the complete scientific process (also note I used creationism which is the DIRECT interpretation of the bible)

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm
Now do I need to point out the place where creationism does not fall in the scientific process? (hint it is at the "revise hypothesis" portion)

http://www2.nau.edu/~gaud/bio372/class/behavior/sciproc.htm
Now do I need to point out the place where creationism does not fall in the scientific process? (hint it is at the "revise hypothesis" portion)
You will have to tell me where it has revised the hypothesis, and why that is bad or is ot science. Because apparently that model says it is part of the process.

Oh and Nature's reality is always the final judge of a scientific theory. ?? So there is no supernatural, hmm.

Actually creation Science is a theory, as is evolution.

It's not a scientific theory.

A scientific theory requires the possibility to be disproven. You can't scientifically proce or disprove the existance of a deity, which is really the onyl difference between the best creation science (basically copying scientific theory and saying god controlled it) from the actual scientific theories.

Creationism is not science. It does not belong in a science classroom. End of story.

You will have to tell me where it has revised the hypothesis, and why that is bad or is ot science. Because apparently that model says it is part of the process.

Oh and ?? So there is no supernatural, hmm.
It hasn't. That's the point. They force the facts to fit the hypothesis, not the other way around. Evolution can be disproved, and has been changed many times over the years to fit the facts. Creationism can not be disproven, and can not change, instead the facts are warped to fit the hypothesis. That is bad science.


No supernatural.

So there is no supernatural, hmm.
Science does not exist to explain the supernatural, or the natural in terms of the supernatural. Science explains the natural in terms of the natural. All else is pseudoscience.

*cough* *cough* Ahem...

What? sounds accurate to me.

You will have to tell me where it has revised the hypothesis, and why that is bad or is ot science. Because apparently that model says it is part of the process.

Oh and ?? So there is no supernatural, hmm.
Maybe I am just not understanding you ... I explaing one of the reasons creationism is not a scientific theory ... to be such it has to follow the model ... unless (when data is found that does not fit into the hypothesis) they have to REVISE it ... as is you can not go back and revise the bible because it does not fit with observerable reality ... weather that is good or bad it is certianly unscientific

They force the facts to fit the hypothesis? When and how?
As I see it Creationism has been changed over the years.

Oh and you can scientifically prove the supernaturally using the scientific diagram I was shown.

They force the facts to fit the hypothesis? When and how?
As I see it Creationism has been changed over the years.

Oh and you can scientifically prove the supernaturally using the scientific diagram I was shown.
Show.

See the bible, and the general lack of any evidence supporting creationism, only pathetic attempts to disprove evolution (which they have yet to do.)

Maybe I am just not understanding you ... I explaing one of the reasons creationism is not a scientific theory ... to be such it has to follow the model ... unless (when data is found that does not fit into the hypothesis) they have to REVISE it ... as is you can not go back and revise the bible because it does not fit with observerable reality ... weather that is good or bad it is certianly unscientific

How does the bible not fit with the observerable reality. People are healed, people come back from the dead. New agers channel. Christians heal and speak in tongues, easterns see visions, and all that fun stuff.

Creationism stems from Genesis 1. thats it. the worldview that creationism can entail if you choose to accept is everything after that.

They force the facts to fit the hypothesis? When and how?
As I see it Creationism has been changed over the years.

Oh and you can scientifically prove the supernaturally using the scientific diagram I was shown.
They have changed the bible over the years (thats the only way creationist theory can change)?


3 entries found for supernatural.
su·per·nat·u·ral Audio pronunciation of "supernatural" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (spr-nchr-l)
adj.

1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces.
3. Of or relating to a deity.
4. Of or relating to the immediate exercise of divine power; miraculous.
5. Of or relating to the miraculous.

if it exists outside the natural world how do you gather information on it? not to mention how do you accuratly atrubute anything if it goes beyond natural forces

If we cant understand it we cant reson it out ... the process works only when we are able to duplicate or gather information on it ... we cant do this as is with the "super natural"

How does the bible not fit with the observerable reality. People are healed, people come back from the dead. New agers channel. Christians heal and speak in tongues, easterns see visions, and all that fun stuff.

Creationism stems from Genesis 1. thats it. the worldview that creationism can entail if you choose to accept is everything after that.
To start with (again creationism demands that the bible is EXACTLY correct) not only does genisis argue with itself on animal order creation but it also effects ages

We can prove that the world is older then led to believe by the bible ... we can also prove man was not first created

That alone is enough to cause a revision in the theory( but they cant because the bible HAS to be right)

Show.

See the bible, and the general lack of any evidence supporting creationism, only pathetic attempts to disprove evolution (which they have yet to do.)


Actualyl I asked you first to give me examples. Also, I can (and ahve the perfect right to say it) say that evolution patheticly attempts to disprove creation in a very ad hominem way. I watched a debate between a creationist (actually an I.D.ist) and an evolutionist. The creationist presented his theory, the evolutionist attacked the creationist and his personal beliefs. The evolutionist did very little presenting of his own beliefs.

They force the facts to fit the hypothesis? When and how?
As I see it Creationism has been changed over the years.

Oh and you can scientifically prove the supernaturally using the scientific diagram I was shown.
If it "proves" the supernatural, chances are it isn't scientific.

And the only way in whcih creationism has changed is to go along with scientific advancements... basically, you might as well just teach evolution as it's the same damn thing except you're throwing in a god.

Actualyl I asked you first to give me examples. Also, I can (and ahve the perfect right to say it) say that evolution patheticly attempts to disprove creation in a very ad hominem way. I watched a debate between a creationist (actually an I.D.ist) and an evolutionist. The creationist presented his theory, the evolutionist attacked the creationist and his personal beliefs. The evolutionist did very little presenting of his own beliefs.
Humans are faliable ... what has that to do with the theory's truth?

Actualyl I asked you first to give me examples. Also, I can (and ahve the perfect right to say it) say that evolution patheticly attempts to disprove creation in a very ad hominem way. I watched a debate between a creationist (actually an I.D.ist) and an evolutionist. The creationist presented his theory, the evolutionist attacked the creationist and his personal beliefs. The evolutionist did very little presenting of his own beliefs.

Well for god's sake show us this peice of evidence that throws all of modern biology into doubt.

Actualyl I asked you first to give me examples. Also, I can (and ahve the perfect right to say it) say that evolution patheticly attempts to disprove creation in a very ad hominem way. I watched a debate between a creationist (actually an I.D.ist) and an evolutionist. The creationist presented his theory, the evolutionist attacked the creationist and his personal beliefs. The evolutionist did very little presenting of his own beliefs.
Hmm?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html

There you are. Cases of creationist clames being misrepresented to prove their point.

And no, have you even read a biology textbook? (College level)

To start with (again creationism demands that the bible is EXACTLY correct) not only does genisis argue with itself on animal order creation but it also effects ages

We can prove that the world is older then led to believe by the bible ... we can also prove man was not first created

That alone is enough to cause a revision in the theory( but they cant because the bible HAS to be right)

Where does genesis argue with itself in animal order? Also the hebrew word in the original text was Y'HM (YOHM), we chose to make that days.YHM can mean day(s), week(s), and year(s). As I see it though, if YHWH is as cracked up to be as the christians say he is, then why can YHWH not make all that is here in six days?

Ok doors not even geting into specifics ... lets take this down to the general

If the creationists theory was proven false or incorrect (irregardless of if you believe it is true) could the theory be changed ? I dont think it can it is a theory put forth out of the bible ... a supposedly unchangeable source

If you can not modify your theory it can not be a scientific theory ... it can be a theory but it does not follow the process therefore is not science

How does the bible not fit with the observerable reality. People are healed, people come back from the dead. New agers channel. Christians heal and speak in tongues, easterns see visions, and all that fun stuff.
Raised from the dead - highly unlikely.
Cured of disease - is this the stuff where someone's in chemo, goes to a church and claims that the church cured them? Or when someone isn't even diagnosed as havign anything wrong or has no medical records of such and such a thing and then goes to a church and comes out "healed" of the malady that cannot be proven to have existed in the first place?
Speak in tongues - religious fervour. Get a large group of people desperate for somethign to happen and you get a whole thing going, I forget the accurate term for it.
visions - with or without drugs/sleep deprivation/extreme fasting/head in the sand et c? The mind is a powerful thing, people can make themlseves feel and see amazing things if they try hard enough.

Furthermore, none of this is proof of the bible.

Where does genesis argue with itself in animal order? Also the hebrew word in the original text was Y'HM (YOHM), we chose to make that days.YHM can mean day(s), week(s), and year(s). As I see it though, if YHWH is as cracked up to be as the christians say he is, then why can YHWH not make all that is here in six days?
In one man was created first ... the other ... animals were created as such

if you are using it as a theory on how EVERYTHING was created order is rather important

ok ok everyone I am tired so please give me atleast..I dunno 10 or 20 min to read whats-his-face's URL he gave me on the fallacies creationist puke out. anyhow, dont get your panties in a roar, I'm just a stupid irrationally thinking christian, what harm will I do?

In one man was created first ... the other ... animals were created as such

if you are using it as a theory on how EVERYTHING was created order is rather important
Let's not forget the fact that the sun and stars were created before the earth (well, most of the stars anyways...) yet in the bible they don't come until afterwards.

ok ok everyone I am tired so please give me atleast..I dunno 10 or 20 min to read whats-his-face's URL he gave me on the fallacies creationist puke out. anyhow, dont get your panties in a roar, I'm just a stupid irrationally thinking christian, what harm will I do?
We never said that you were unthinking we simply have different axioms so sometimes hard to understand eachother

Just lets not get into the specifics again about proving one true or false rather stick to proving if it is a scientific theory as such ... if it is not a scientific theory it should not be taught in a SCIENCE class
it has nothing to do with the truth of the theory

Let's not forget the fact that the sun and stars were created before the earth (well, most of the stars anyways...) yet in the bible they don't come until afterwards.
I was even only geting into the arguements within genisis creation accounts ... not even issues with reality

I was even only geting into the arguements within genisis creation accounts ... not even issues with reality
Fair enough.

Actually creation Science is a theory, as is evolution.

Ahem...

Evolution is a 'Theory'... in the scientific sense of the word. Something very VERY different than the general usage of that word outside of science.
Creationism is a 'theory'... in the sense that it is a dreamed up idea that doesn't have a shred of real-world evidence to support it and has absolutely zero explanatory power.

Hey, just chatting with a friend while checking out talkorigins.. do you guys agree with this?

if creationism was proven false the bible would be disproven

If so, you believe that creationism has already been disproven, therefore the Bible has been disproven?

Or was what my friend said comepletely off?

Hey, just chatting with a friend while checking out talkorigins.. do you guys agree with this?



If so, you believe that creationism has already been disproven, therefore the Bible has been disproven?

Or was what my friend said comepletely off?
Depends on how you take the bible ... as the literal or as the general outline

IF you believe it to be LITTERALY true and any part was proven false then it would be a fallibal book (not nessisarly disprove the whole book rather would make the book falable ... something christians do not like to admit ... that parts of the book could be off)

If so, you believe that creationism has already been disproven, therefore the Bible has been disproven?

Depends how literally you think the bible is supposed to be taken... particularily genesis. I know plenty of Christians who readily accept that genesis was meant as poetic metaphor... not a detailed historical chronicle of how an actual talking snake caused the Fall of Man by tricking some lady into eating a peice of fruit, etc, etc... absurdities abound...

If so, you believe that creationism has already been disproven, therefore the Bible has been disproven?

Or was what my friend said comepletely off?
Your friend is a little hmm... how shall I put it...

No.

OK...whoa this is gonna be hard. I believe I switched into a Post-Modernist view somewhere this year and I need to get back into a Modernist viewpoint. So lets see...


(1) You can modify the creation theory, screw the Bible. First change the theory, then try and find it in the Bible, if it doesn't fit. One side is wrong.

(2) The two creation accounts are true. ..actually I just looked for those two inconsistencies (man is created in Ch.1 then created in Ch.2, but I don't find the inconsistency) and can't find them or understand them. I was taught and believe that the write is simply reitterating the importance of man to God. Also the writer is reviewing what has happened so far.

(3)Uh yeah, I am gonna read your response and then go and do something else. I will reply more later (and after reading more from talkorigins which seems very pro-evolutionist biased)

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=An_Index_to_Creationist_Claims

(3)Uh yeah, I am gonna read your response and then go and do something else. I will reply more later (and after reading more from talkorigins which seems very pro-evolutionist biased
I think the term you're looking for is "scientific"

OK...whoa this is gonna be hard. I believe I switched into a Post-Modernist view somewhere this year and I need to get back into a Modernist viewpoint. So lets see...


(1) You can modify the creation theory, screw the Bible. First change the theory, then try and find it in the Bible, if it doesn't fit. One side is wrong.

(2) The two creation accounts are true. ..actually I just looked for those two inconsistencies (man is created in Ch.1 then created in Ch.2, but I don't find the inconsistency) and can't find them or understand them. I was taught and believe that the write is simply reitterating the importance of man to God. Also the writer is reviewing what has happened so far.

(3)Uh yeah, I am gonna read your response and then go and do something else. I will reply more later (and after reading more from talkorigins which seems very pro-evolutionist biased)

http://www.nwcreation.net/wiki/index.php?title=An_Index_to_Creationist_Claims
See maybe here is the issue you are not taking it as a true creationist ;) where the bible is infalable and was not made to be a general story

What I am argueing with is creationism the set "theory" and you are talking a seperate more liberal creation theory

We are just arguing two different things

(3)Uh yeah, I am gonna read your response and then go and do something else. I will reply more later (and after reading more from talkorigins which seems very pro-evolutionist biased)

The site is the collected contributions of dozens of PhD Biologists, Genetisists, Geologists, etc... so yeah, it's pro-evolution. People at that level in those fields stopped doubting the evidence for evolution about a century ago when the evidence reached the point where it was too overwhelming to rationally deny.

See maybe here is the issue you are not taking it as a true creationist ;) where the bible is infalable and was not made to be a general story

Nah, I believe the Bible is infalable, just it can be screwed up in translations and interpretations. I go now with some expectations for answers:
Give me evidence of the evolutionary process ...
(1) new additional genetic information
(2) of a species changing (evolving) into something new.
(3)Then tell me of positive mutations inside a gene pool that have continued
to this day. (that should be easy)

...ok I am getting tired I go now.

Nah, I believe the Bible is infalable, just it can be screwed up in translations and interpretations. I go now with some expectations for answers:
Give me evidence of the evolutionary process ...
(1) new additional genetic information
(2) of a species changing (evolving) into something new.
(3)Then tell me of positive mutations inside a gene pool that have continued
to this day. (that should be easy)

...ok I am getting tired I go now.
Im not going to get into this here because this is not the place ... create another thread about it and we will get into it :)

Nah, I believe the Bible is infalable, just it can be screwed up in translations and interpretations. I go now with some expectations for answers:
Give me evidence of the evolutionary process ...
(1) new additional genetic information

Bacteria recently evolving the ability to digest nylon through a frame-shift mutation:

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

(2) of a species changing (evolving) into something new.

Just one example? You have to look around talk.origins a bit more:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

(3)Then tell me of positive mutations inside a gene pool that have continued to this day. (that should be easy)

Umm.... almost all of them that came post-cyanobacteria and are still around today? Was this a serious question?

It's not a scientific theory.

A scientific theory requires the possibility to be disproven. You can't scientifically proce or disprove the existance of a deity, which is really the onyl difference between the best creation science (basically copying scientific theory and saying god controlled it) from the actual scientific theories.

Creationism is not science. It does not belong in a science classroom. End of story.

Technically, it is a theory since it can be tested, but Creationists always find some way to get around it being disproven, so basically, it is unfalsifiable.

From what I see of the book itself, I must disagree, though. For one thing, Chomsky is hardly a fanatic unless you consider criticizing the US for things the rest of the world criticizes it for, anyway, to be fanatical. Also, I happen to believe faith and reason to be two sides of the same coin.

Wow! 62% of Americans want creation science taught along with evolution, and 44% want creation science taught without evolution. I'd never have guessed that creation science in schools was supported by...106% of Americans.

Wow! 62% of Americans want creation science taught along with evolution, and 44% want creation science taught without evolution. I'd never have guessed that creation science in schools was supported by...106% of Americans.

They're not just Creation Scientists...they're Creation Mathematicians too!
"If Jesus says that we can have more than 100%, then dammit, it MUST be true!"

The initial link doesn't work for me, it just takes me to some website about a book with no video. Can someone summarize the video and its standpoint?

talkorigins which seems very pro-evolutionist biased
Did you seriously just say that? Saying biologists and other scientists have a "Pro evolutionist bias" is like saying physicists have a Pro-Newton or Pro-Einstein Bias. Of course the believe in evolution! Modern Biology is rooted in evolutionary theory in the same way modern physics and theorectical physics are rooted in Newton and Einstein! It can't even be called a bias. Thats like saying Christians have a Pro-Jesus bias, thats such an insane thing to say that it doesn't even make any sense.

When it's your job to serve as the president's in-house expert on science and technology, being constantly in the media spotlight isn't necessarily a mark of distinction. But for President Bush's stoically inclined science adviser John Marburger, immense controversy followed his blanket dismissal last year of allegations (now endorsed by 48 Nobel laureates) that the administration has systematically abused science. So it was more than a little refreshing last Wednesday to hear Marburger take a strong stance against science politicization and abuse on one issue where it really matters: evolution.

Speaking at the annual conference of the National Association of Science Writers, Marburger fielded an audience question about "Intelligent Design" (ID), the latest supposedly scientific alternative to Charles Darwin's theory of descent with modification. The White House's chief scientist stated point blank, "Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory." And that's not all -- as if to ram the point home, Marburger soon continued, "I don't regard Intelligent Design as a scientific topic."

LMAO! That video is hilarious! It brings things straight to the point! :D

the problem is creationism is NOT SCIENCE ... it does not follow the scientic process. if it is not science it should not be taught in a science class ... it should be taught where it belongs ... theology (I am all for the teaching of religous ideas but where they belong)

Creationism is not just about "intellegent design" and complexity meaning a creator. It also is about scientific support for biblical events and creation is one of them.

Creationism is not just about "intellegent design" and complexity meaning a creator. It also is about scientific support for biblical events and creation is one of them.

Hehe. Well, that's the whole point: there is no scientific support for Creation or Deluge according to Genesis. :p

Creationism is not just about "intellegent design" and complexity meaning a creator. It also is about scientific support for biblical events and creation is one of them.
I guess that's why the President's Science Advisor says that not only is intelligent design not a scientific theory, he said it's not even a scientific topic.

Hehe. Well, that's the whole point: there is no scientific support for Creation or Deluge according to Genesis. :p

There is, such as the Cambrian strata or Radiometric dating compensation methods. But people refuse to teach it comparitively so its not accepted. Blanket statements like that is what makes people angry. The fact is there is eveidence for both the Biblical account of creation and the theory of evolution. But neither one can be proven certian.

The initial link doesn't work for me, it just takes me to some website about a book with no video. Can someone summarize the video and its standpoint?

Click on "Animations" at the top.

There is, such as the Cambrian strata or Radiometric dating compensation methods. But people refuse to teach it comparitively so its not accepted. Blanket statements like that is what makes people angry. The fact is there is eveidence for both the Biblical account of creation and the theory of evolution. But neither one can be proven certian.

Cambrian strata, eh? If you are talking about the 'Cambrian Explosion', I can assure that's no proof for Creation, let me explain, the Burgess Shale in Canada is just a site with exceptional good preservation where animals with exclusively soft-tissue have been preserved. If you look anywhere else in Cambrian sediments, you will only find remains of animals with hard tissue - like trilobytes, archaeocyathides and brachiopodes. Those appear in the Burgess Shale too, but they make up only 2%. The lifeforms from Burgess Shale weren't created from one day to the other, they evolved over millions of years. I'm pretty sure that if some day a similar good preservation site from the Early Cambrian will be found (Burgess Shale is Middle Cambrian), then we will also see ancestors of the Burgess Shale fauna. :)

Radiometric Dating 'Compensation' methods? The only radiometric dating method that actually does require compensation is the C-14 method (note: against the common misbelief, it is NOT used for dating rocks, it's used for dating bones younger than 50,000 years!), and that partially even because of man-made trouble. The whole problem comes from the fact that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere/biosphere is not constant (as initially assumed). We have in fact contaminated the atmosphere with radioactive isotopes from the nuclear tests in the 1950's, and we have also contaminated it by burning C-14-free carbon from fossil fuels. Therefore compensation measures are necessary. Otherwise, we'd get false values. Oh, and i should also add that due to climatic reasons, C-14 levels are varying over the millennia. This however can be compensated with Dendrochronology (which, to my knowledge dates back circa 9500 years - towards the end of the last ice age).

I agree that it technically can't be prooven for certain, but one got to be an extraordinary fool to ignore the overwhelming evidence (and the overwhelming lack of evidence for Creation/Deluge). ;)

I agree that it technically can't be prooven for certain, but one got to be an extraordinary fool to ignore the overwhelming evidence (and the overwhelming lack of proof for Creation/Deluge). ;)

One of the things that Neo fails to understand is that in order for one theory to take the place of another, you have to disprove the prior theory as well as prove the new theory.

Otherwise, you haven't accomplished anything.

You could spend the next 200 years working with an army of scientists, and never, ever come close to disproving the mass of evidence that backs evolution as a theory.

Cambrian strata, eh? If you are talking about the 'Cambrian Explosion', I can assure that's no proof for Creation, let me explain, the Burgess Shale in Canada is just a site with exceptional good preservation where animals with exclusively soft-tissue have been preserved. If you look anywhere else in Cambrian sediments, you will only find remains of animals with hard tissue - like trilobytes, archaeocyathides and brachiopodes. Those appear in the Burgess Shale too, but they make up only 2%. The lifeforms from Burgess Shale weren't created from one day to the other, they evolved over millions of years. I'm pretty sure that if some day a similar good preservation site from the Early Cambrian will be found (Burgess Shale is Middle Cambrian), then we will also see ancestors of the Burgess Shale fauna. :)

How do you explain the existance of spores and pollen in the Cambrian strata when spore bearing and pollenating plants according to that record, have not come into being yet

Radiometric Dating 'Compensation' methods? The only radiometric dating method that actually does require compensation is the C-14 method (note: against the common misbelief, it is NOT used for dating rocks, it's used for dating bones younger than 50,000 years!), and that partially even because of man-made trouble. The whole problem comes from the fact that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere/biosphere is not constant (as initially assumed). We have in fact contaminated the atmosphere with radioactive isotopes from the nuclear tests in the 1950's, and we have also contaminated it by burning C-14-free carbon from fossil fuels. Therefore compensation measures are necessary. Otherwise, we'd get false values. Oh, and i should also add that due to climatic reasons, C-14 levels are varying over the millennia. This however can be compensated with Dendrochronology (which, to my knowledge dates back circa 9500 years - towards the end of the last ice age).


Commmon misconception. I said radiometric dating not carbon dating. There is a diffrence.

- The diversity of life on earth is the outcome of evolution: an unpredictable and natural process of temporal descent with genetic modification that is affected by natural selection, chance, historical contingencies and changing environments.

- Evolutionary theory is significant in biology, among other reasons, for its unifying properties and predictive features, the clear empirical testability of its integral models and the richness of new scientific research it fosters.

- The fossil record, which includes abundant transitional forms in diverse taxonomic groups, establishes extensive and comprehensive evidence for organic evolution.

- Natural selection, the primary mechanism for evolutionary changes, can be demonstrated with numerous, convincing examples, both extant and extinct.

- Natural selection-a differential, greater survival and reproduction of some genetic variants within a population under an existing environmental state-has no specific direction or goal, including survival of a species.

- Adaptations do not always provide an obvious selective advantage. Furthermore, there is no indication that adaptations-molecular to organismal-must be perfect: adaptations providing a selective advantage must simply be good enough for survival and increased reproductive fitness.

- The model of punctuated equilibrium provides another account of the tempo of speciation in the fossil record of many lineages: it does not refute or overturn evolutionary theory, but instead adds to its scientific richness.

- Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics: producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun.

- Although comprehending deep time is difficult, the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. Homo sapiens has occupied only a minuscule moment of that immense duration of time.

- When compared with earlier periods, the Cambrian explosion evident in the fossil record reflects at least three phenomena: the evolution of animals with readily-fossilized hard body parts; Cambrian environment (sedimentary rock) more conducive to preserving fossils; and the evolution from pre-Cambrian forms of an increased diversity of body patterns in animals.

- Radiometric and other dating techniques, when used properly, are highly accurate means of establishing dates in the history of the planet and in the history of life.

- In science, a theory is not a guess or an approximation but an extensive explanation developed from well-documented, reproducible sets of experimentally-derived data from repeated observations of natural processes.

- The models and the subsequent outcomes of a scientific theory are not decided in advance, but can be, and often are, modified and improved as new empirical evidence is uncovered. Thus, science is a constantly self-correcting endeavor to understand nature and natural phenomena.

- Science is not teleological: the accepted processes do not start with a conclusion, then refuse to change it, or acknowledge as valid only those data that support an unyielding conclusion. Science does not base theories on an untestable collection of dogmatic proposals. Instead, the processes of science are characterized by asking questions, proposing hypotheses, and designing empirical models and conceptual frameworks for research about natural events.

- Providing a rational, coherent and scientific account of the taxonomic history and diversity of organisms requires inclusion of the mechanisms and principles of evolution.

- Similarly, effective teaching of cellular and molecular biology requires inclusion of evolution.

- Specific textbook chapters on evolution should be included in biology curricula, and evolution should be a recurrent theme throughout biology textbooks and courses.

- Students can maintain their religious beliefs and learn the scientific foundations of evolution.

- Teachers should respect diverse beliefs, but contrasting science with religion, such as belief in creationism, is not a role of science. Science teachers can, and often do, hold devout religious beliefs, accept evolution as a valid scientific theory, and teach the theory's mechanisms and principles.

- Science and religion differ in significant ways that make it inappropriate to teach any of the different religious beliefs in the science classroom. Opposition to teaching evolution reflects confusion about the nature and processes of science.

How do you explain the existance of spores and pollen in the Cambrian strata when spore bearing and pollenating plants according to that record, have not come into being yet

Show?


Commmon misconception. I said radiometric dating not carbon dating. There is a diffrence.
Yes, and I can 'recalibrate' anything to say that it happened yesterday. That doesn't make it correct.

How do you explain the existance of spores and pollen in the Cambrian strata when spore bearing and pollenating plants according to that record, have not come into being yet

I agree, that would be impossible. However, let me ask you something: where did you read that? In the case it's from a non-dubious site, the question would be: are those really pollen? (worth a closer examination). Like, they could be something totally else, for example planktic organisms like Acritarchs or Chitinozoa.

Commmon misconception. I said radiometric dating not carbon dating. There is a diffrence.

Huh? C-14 is a type of radiometric dating. What are you talking about?

Ok yo yo, I'm back I am trying to collect my thoughts, just some stuff

Whispering Legs, you said the
- Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics: producing order from disorder is possible with the addition of energy, such as from the sun.

Well, the sun is eventually going to end, so actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics will end. Stars do die.

Well, the sun is eventually going to end, so actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics will end. Stars do die.

Well, that means that for the next few billion years, we'll be able to grow some major bud and smoke it - until the sun burns out (or until it expands and snuffs out the Earth).

Well, that means that for the next few billion years, we'll be able to grow some major bud and smoke it - until the sun burns out (or until it expands and snuffs out the Earth).

So then the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't disproved, right Upward?

So then the Second Law of Thermodynamics isn't disproved, right Upward?

No, I'm saying that overall the 2nd Law applies - but there are always local areas where entropy is reversed.

No, I'm saying that overall the 2nd Law applies - but there are always local areas where entropy is reversed.

Heh, the answer is rather simple:

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that "In a closed system, entropy will only increase." Lifeforms are no way closed systems. In an open system, entropy can decrease at the cost that the entropy of the surrounding increases. :)

Oh, and i should mention those Creationist sites intentionally leave out that "In a closed system" phrase in order to turn this into one of their arguments.

Ok yo yo, I'm back I am trying to collect my thoughts, just some stuff

Whispering Legs, you said the


Well, the sun is eventually going to end, so actually the Second Law of Thermodynamics will end. Stars do die.
Um...no. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe will eventually die a 'heat death', as all of its energy has been converted into entropy (ie no reaction has 100% effiency, and will always release some energy into the environment as heat). Nothing else.

Heh, the answer is rather simple:

The 2nd law of Thermodynamics states that "In a closed system, entropy will only increase." Lifeforms are no way closed systems. In an open system, entropy can decrease at the cost that the entropy of the surrounding increases. :)

Oh, and i should mention those Creationist sites intentionally leave out that "In a closed system" phrase in order to turn this into one of their arguments.

Lifeforms aren't a closed system?? Uhhh?
And entropy wins no matter what, you just said it yourself.

Lifeforms aren't a closed system?? Uhhh?
And entropy wins no matter what, you just said it yourself.
Lifeforms are not a closed system. Take some biology then come back. That's a rather basic concept, unless you're saying you don't eat, drink or breath.

Um...no. The second law of thermodynamics states that the universe will eventually die a 'heat death', as all of its energy has been converted into entropy (ie no reaction has 100% effiency, and will always release some energy into the environment as heat). Nothing else.

So then entropy wins?

So then entropy wins?

Always. Everything cancels out.

Lifeforms aren't a closed system?? Uhhh?
And entropy wins no matter what, you just said it yourself.

Of course lifeforms aren't closed systems. I mean, look at yourself, you eat & drink, breathe and so on. There are plenty of substances entering and leaving your body... so, that prettymuch sounds like an open system. :)

Of course lifeforms aren't closed systems. I mean, look at yourself, you eat & drink, breathe and so on. There are plenty of substances entering and leaving your body... so, that prettymuch sounds like an open system. :)

Ok thanks, there was a very very little voice in me that was saying that, but I squashed it. Turns out it was right heh. My question then is: If entropy wins...then what are we debating about?

Ok thanks, there was a very very little voice in me that was saying that, but I squashed it. Turns out it was right heh. My question then is: If entropy wins...then what are we debating about?

Well, we technically are debunking a typical Creationist website argument:
By leaving out that "in a closed system" phrase, they state that the 2nd law of thermodynamics would prohibit the existence of lifeforms, and therefore in their argumentation life must have been created. But, as stated earlier, this argumentation is nonsense. :p

Cambrian strata, eh? If you are talking about the 'Cambrian Explosion', I can assure that's no proof for Creation, let me explain, the Burgess Shale in Canada is just a site with exceptional good preservation where animals with exclusively soft-tissue have been preserved. If you look anywhere else in Cambrian sediments, you will only find remains of animals with hard tissue - like trilobytes, archaeocyathides and brachiopodes. Those appear in the Burgess Shale too, but they make up only 2%. The lifeforms from Burgess Shale weren't created from one day to the other, they evolved over millions of years. I'm pretty sure that if some day a similar good preservation site from the Early Cambrian will be found (Burgess Shale is Middle Cambrian), then we will also see ancestors of the Burgess Shale fauna. :)

Already happened. Look up the recent fossil finds in China going back to the late Proterezoic/early Cambrian.

Radiometric Dating 'Compensation' methods? The only radiometric dating method that actually does require compensation is the C-14 method (note: against the common misbelief, it is NOT used for dating rocks, it's used for dating bones younger than 50,000 years!), and that partially even because of man-made trouble. The whole problem comes from the fact that the concentration of C-14 in the atmosphere/biosphere is not constant (as initially assumed). We have in fact contaminated the atmosphere with radioactive isotopes from the nuclear tests in the 1950's, and we have also contaminated it by burning C-14-free carbon from fossil fuels. Therefore compensation measures are necessary. Otherwise, we'd get false values. Oh, and i should also add that due to climatic reasons, C-14 levels are varying over the millennia. This however can be compensated with Dendrochronology (which, to my knowledge dates back circa 9500 years - towards the end of the last ice age).

Also with lake varve and glacial cores which go back tens of thousands of years... and once the compensation calibrations were applied they made the dates OLDER by a few percent.

No, I'm saying that overall the 2nd Law applies - but there are always local areas where entropy is reversed.

Your basicly saying that its the sun which allows abiogenesis to occur?

Your basicly saying that its the sun which allows abiogenesis to occur?

More accurately: It's the sun and other external energy sources (heat from geothermal vents for example) which provides the energy necessary for the chemical processes involved to occur without ever violating the second law of thermodynamics. The only reason this is ever mentioned is because for the longest time creationists kept running around proclaiming that evolution violated that law by decreasing entropy, but neglecting to mention that the law only said that entropy never decreases IN A CLOSED SYSTEM... which the earth is not.