NationStates Jolt Archive

Hypothesis: Our biosphere was designed and made by a creator.

This hypothesis can be tested by observation.

For example: Observation of DNA

According to chemical evolution, DNA formed by chance, after certain molecules linked up into larger molecules.

I find it difficult to see how DNA formed by chance.

All molecules of DNA formed are left handed isomers.

Molecules can be right or left handed. It is likely for a random process to generate right and left handed articles since a chemical process would select an equal amount of left and right molecules.

However, all are left handed in DNA therefore it is not logical to assume that a random process gives rise to sterospecific polymers.

DNA is not a random genetic code. It is a vocabulary of nucleotides whose order and sequence forms a message which, instructs a living cell on which protein to make.

It is obvious that codes do not happen by chance, they must be composed or designed. It is contrary to the nature of a code to come by random process.

The information in the genetic code is so complex that it cannot have been created by chance. This was even admitted by Dr Crick - the man who discovered the double helix.

It is logical to assume that DNA was designed by an intelligent creator.

We can not ignore science and what it tells us about the universe. Creationism does not ignore science. Creationism challenges evolutionary interpretations of science that are unscientific and irrational.

First, where does Creationism NOT ignore science? Prettymuch every evidence I have presented so far in respect for geology and paleontology shows complete incompatibility with the ideas of Creationism. And second, where is the interpretation as evolution irrational and unscientific? Creationism is irrational and unscientific, because it's original assumption is 'God did it in 7 days, and every evidence has to fit it'.

Evolution is a inappropriately small word used to describe a vast mixture of genuine science and questionable theories. For example, chemical evolution, neo Darwinian theory, fossil record, natural selection etc can all be referred to as evolution.

That is a typical Creationist misconception. Evolution in the scientific sense is just about biological evolution. However, in the Creationist sense it is everything that is inconsistent with the Genesis account (i.e. Big Bang, Abiogenesis, Geology, etc.). Some of these fields have little or nothing to do with Evolution.


It is therefore possible to accept aspects of evolution, for example, the process of mutation and natural selection, and reject others, for example, the idea that the totality of evolution from amoeba to man plus the wide branching of life forms that we know today all happened because of a sequence of beneficial mutations and natural selection.

That is another typical Creationist misconception. Creationists accept the aspects of science which they find consistent with their interpretation and abolish the rest. I call that 'Cherrypickerism', and it is not very scientific, either. You have to accept science as a whole, there is no difference between 'Good Science' and 'Bad Science'.

As a scientist I find 'evolution' difficult to accept as a rational explanation for life. I believe creationism provides a logical and plausible alternative explanation for what caused the explosion of life that we see today.

What kind of scientist? You don't seem to be educated about the topic. I'm asking you where does Creationism provide a logical and plausible explanation? If anything is possible through God, why do we only see what's possible through evolution? You also totally have to ignore every evidence of geology and fossil record to believe in Creationism. We see a long history of life, which supposedly didn't happen according to Genesis since God created it in six days. I think that's what falls into the cathegory of historic revisionism...

In my opinion, both theories should be respected as different interpretations of science and people should be left to make up their own mind about which is more plausible without being branded an idiot or likened to a flat earth supporter.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory. This has been said over and over again. Regarding making up your own mind: once you deal with geology and palaeontology, it becomes obvious evolution is not just a possibility but a necessity to have taken place.

Hypothesis: Our biosphere was designed and made by a creator.

This hypothesis can be tested by observation.

Ok, you have that hypothesis. It can be falsified easily. Geology and Palaeontology strongly suggests our biosphere slowly evolved over time. Fossil record speaks a very clear language.

For example: Observation of DNA

According to chemical evolution, DNA formed by chance, after certain molecules linked up into larger molecules.

I find it difficult to see how DNA formed by chance.

Just because you find it difficult to imagine, that doesn't mean it's impossible. You may have heard of the Miller-Urey experiments. Conditions similar to that experiment existed on early Earth, and they exist today at a variety of places in space.

All molecules of DNA formed are left handed isomers.

Molecules can be right or left handed. It is likely for a random process to generate right and left handed articles since a chemical process would select an equal amount of left and right molecules.

I think this strongly suggests that there is one commom ancestor of all lifeforms. If God created life separately according to kinds, he could have easily created lifeforms with left- and righthanded DNA. Why didn't he do that?

However, all are left handed in DNA therefore it is not logical to assume that a random process gives rise to sterospecific polymers.

Why is it not logical to assume that if right-handed DNA existed amongst early-lifeforms, they were outcompeted by others? It sounds quite plausible.

DNA is not a random genetic code. It is a vocabulary of nucleotides whose order and sequence forms a message which, instructs a living cell on which protein to make.

It is obvious that codes do not happen by chance, they must be composed or designed. It is contrary to the nature of a code to come by random process.

The information in the genetic code is so complex that it cannot have been created by chance. This was even admitted by Dr Crick - the man who discovered the double helix.

It is logical to assume that DNA was designed by an intelligent creator.

The lifeforms we have today are the product of some three billion years of evolution, and you can assume that all of them - even bacteria - are much more complex than the earliest organism. It's not logical to assume life today must have been created because you can't (or don't want to) imagine more simple precursors. Btw, i recommend reading this (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html).

haha.. admittedly I’m not a real scientist. I'm doing a biology degree and I’m working in physiology research for a placement year.

Neo Darwinian Evolution is a brilliant and simple concept based on two processes, mutation and natural selection.

It's claimed that although beneficial mutations occur infrequently (something like 99.9% of mutations are harmful), natural selection rushes in to protect and preserve it as soon as it arises and it imparts benefit to the organism.

I acknowledge the existence of natural selection but is the combined mechanism of mutation and natural selection anything like adequate to account for the totality of life forms or the biosphere we know today?

Claiming that from a single life form there has arisen a million species must mean a method of diversification exists to cause the continual broadening and diversification in the tree of evolution.

What does natural selection do? It does not cause diversification, it causes convergence. All the best possible characteristics are selected out by natural selection and consequently all animals become more and more alike not different and this process is not efficient to account for our biosphere.

There is a certain amount of validity in the idea of geographical separation and different selective pressures causing different results. However, I find it extremely difficult to accept that the rather chance processes of geographical separation in bringing about sufficiently different environments, was enough to cause this enormous diversity of life.

I find a more rational explanation to be that God created numerous species of animals that have changed by natural selection into what we see today.

There is a certain amount of validity in the idea of geographical separation and different selective pressures causing different results. However, I find it extremely difficult to accept that the rather chance processes of geographical separation in bringing about sufficiently different environments, was enough to cause this enormous diversity of life.



Why does it always come down to this? This seems to be the main argument (and the only one in this post) against evolution, simply that it all seems too complicated to come about by chance when it should be readily apparent that we are unable to make snap judegements with any degree of accuracy about a system so complex. I dont quite see how this so hard to beleive, as complex behaviour can easily arise from a set of simple rules.

Ok, you have that hypothesis. It can be falsified easily. Geology and Palaeontology strongly suggests our biosphere slowly evolved over time. Fossil record speaks a very clear language.

A lot of evolutionary evidence is speculation. However, the fossil record is UNARGUABLY, concrete, tangible evidence that cannot be ignored.

Evolutionists believe that the fossil record is the observed remains of creatures from the past in sedimentary rocks. In the lowest stratum, the simplest forms of life are seen and as you go up through the column, higher forms such as advanced vertebrates can be seen. So they say it's like a history book of life and that lower forms gradually evolved into higher forms.

That's fair enough... but belief in evolution can not be derived or justified by the fossil record because it does not display a gradual transformation of one species to another which is key to neo Darwinism evolutionary theory.

If read as a history book, the fossil record tells us that there were no changes for millions of years and then abrupt changes to form new species. This is not evidence for gradual change.

Just because you find it difficult to imagine, that doesn't mean it's impossible. You may have heard of the Miller-Urey experiments. Conditions similar to that experiment existed on early Earth, and they exist today at a variety of places in space.

The Miller-Urey experiments showed that in the presumed conditions of the early atmosphere (a reducing atmosphere made up of methane, CO2, H2O vapour, H2 but NO O2), energy can cause small molecules to link together to produce amino acids.

This argument turns on the absence of oxygen in the early atmosphere since O2 breaks down molecules into smaller ones meaning evolution could not happen in the presence of O2.

There is no scientific evidence that O2 wasn't around in the early earth. And the state of oxidation of rocks indicates there was plenty of free O2.

The evolutionary argument is this: Evolution of life from small incriminate molecules could not happen if O2 was present. Life came about like this therefore no O2 was there.

This argument is circular and not logical or scientific.



If God created life separately according to kinds, he could have easily created life forms with left- and right handed DNA. Why didn't he do that?.

To give creationists some slack. haha.. jk. I assume that because his design clearly worked well, he repeated it.



The life forms we have today are the product of some three billion years of evolution, and you can assume that all of them - even bacteria - are much more complex than the earliest organism.

Of course.. 'time' is the ultimate answer to all of evolutions fallacies. ;)

Ok, you have that hypothesis. It can be falsified easily. Geology and Palaeontology strongly suggests our biosphere slowly evolved over time. Fossil record speaks a very clear language.

I forget to say that the creationist explanation for the fossil record is of course the flood.

I believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6-9. Thus creationists believe that the order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood, and the local catastrophes that followed.

haha.. admittedly I’m not a real scientist. I'm doing a biology degree and I’m working in physiology research for a placement year.

"Thou shalst not lie..." ;)

Neo Darwinian Evolution is a brilliant and simple concept based on two processes, mutation and natural selection.

It's claimed that although beneficial mutations occur infrequently (something like 99.9% of mutations are harmful), natural selection rushes in to protect and preserve it as soon as it arises and it imparts benefit to the organism.

I acknowledge the existence of natural selection but is the combined mechanism of mutation and natural selection anything like adequate to account for the totality of life forms or the biosphere we know today?

Yes, certainly. Also, natural selection is a very broad term, since a multiplicity of factors could cause selective pressures.

Claiming that from a single life form there has arisen a million species must mean a method of diversification exists to cause the continual broadening and diversification in the tree of evolution.

Yeah there exists such a method of diversification, and we can clearly see it in the fossil record. It is opportunistic radiation following extinction events, and this can be seen over and over again happening in the fossil record. For example, the exitinction of the dinosaurs left many ecological niches open for mammals (this is a classical example, there are others). I don't know if you are aware of it, but something like 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct today. You can see that over and over again, not just single species but entire classes of animals became extinct.

What does natural selection do? It does not cause diversification, it causes convergence. All the best possible characteristics are selected out by natural selection and consequently all animals become more and more alike not different and this process is not efficient to account for our biosphere.

Huh? You seem to have some weird misconceptions about life, somehow. Where do animals become more and more similar? Convergence does exist amongst animals that have a similar ecological niche because of similar selective pressures. These animals can exist on different continents or in different times. Take ichtyosaurs and whales, for example.

There is a certain amount of validity in the idea of geographical separation and different selective pressures causing different results. However, I find it extremely difficult to accept that the rather chance processes of geographical separation in bringing about sufficiently different environments, was enough to cause this enormous diversity of life.

Why do you find it difficult to acccept? Opportunity and chance is certainly a big factor. I mean, look at human history. Do you think the Roman empire was created by God? ;)

I find a more rational explanation to be that God created numerous species of animals that have changed by natural selection into what we see today.

Don't you see the inconsistency? You claim that the mechanisms of evolution exist but because of your lack of knowledge of the fossil record and hence claim it must have been created by God.

Hypothesis: Our biosphere was designed and made by a creator.

This hypothesis can be tested by observation.

For example: Observation of DNA

According to chemical evolution, DNA formed by chance, after certain molecules linked up into larger molecules.

I find it difficult to see how DNA formed by chance.

All molecules of DNA formed are left handed isomers.

Molecules can be right or left handed. It is likely for a random process to generate right and left handed articles since a chemical process would select an equal amount of left and right molecules.

However, all are left handed in DNA therefore it is not logical to assume that a random process gives rise to sterospecific polymers.

DNA is not a random genetic code. It is a vocabulary of nucleotides whose order and sequence forms a message which, instructs a living cell on which protein to make.

It is obvious that codes do not happen by chance, they must be composed or designed. It is contrary to the nature of a code to come by random process.

The information in the genetic code is so complex that it cannot have been created by chance. This was even admitted by Dr Crick - the man who discovered the double helix.

It is logical to assume that DNA was designed by an intelligent creator.
Please provide a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Saying, "I find it unlikely that X would have happened" is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis. Saying that "it is obvious that codes are designed" is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis (and is, in fact, directly contradicted by current evidence). Saying "it is logical to assume X" is not a testable, falsifiable hypothesis.

I ask again: please provide the testable hypotheses set forth by Creationism. As a self-identified scientist, I am sure you will have viewed the issue of evolution from this perspective, and will be easily able to explain the testable nature of Creationist theory.

A lot of evolutionary evidence is speculation. However, the fossil record is UNARGUABLY, concrete, tangible evidence that cannot be ignored.

Evolutionists believe that the fossil record is the observed remains of creatures from the past in sedimentary rocks. In the lowest stratum, the simplest forms of life are seen and as you go up through the column, higher forms such as advanced vertebrates can be seen. So they say it's like a history book of life and that lower forms gradually evolved into higher forms.

That's fair enough... but belief in evolution can not be derived or justified by the fossil record because it does not display a gradual transformation of one species to another which is key to neo Darwinism evolutionary theory.

Why is evolutionary evidence speculation? Why can it not be justified from the fossil record. We see what should be expected, namely gradual transformation. And regarding gaps in the fossil record, I assume you have never heard about taphonomy or the taphonomic filter?
Why is evolutionary evidence speculation? Why can it not be justified from the fossil record. We see what should be expected, namely gradual transformation. It has been documented very well in quite a number of cases.

If read as a history book, the fossil record tells us that there were no changes for millions of years and then abrupt changes to form new species. This is not evidence for gradual change.

If you are reading history of life on Earth on flat, you get the impression it would be like that. However, it's more like phases of little change (not no change) and phases of rapid change. The latter ones occur in the aftermath extinction events.


The Miller-Urey experiments showed that in the presumed conditions of the early atmosphere (a reducing atmosphere made up of methane, CO2, H2O vapour, H2 but NO O2), energy can cause small molecules to link together to produce amino acids.

This argument turns on the absence of oxygen in the early atmosphere since O2 breaks down molecules into smaller ones meaning evolution could not happen in the presence of O2.

There is no scientific evidence that O2 wasn't around in the early earth. And the state of oxidation of rocks indicates there was plenty of free O2.

The evolutionary argument is this: Evolution of life from small incriminate molecules could not happen if O2 was present. Life came about like this therefore no O2 was there.

This argument is circular and not logical or scientific.

I have to correct you about absence of oxygen in early atmosphere. There is evidence. How do you think minerals like uraninite and pyrite (both form only under anoxic conditions) can form in terrestrial sediments? The only explanation is that the air was free of oxygen!

Besides, where do you think does oxygen come from? It comes from plants, produced by photosynthesis. Every child knows that. Thus, before there were plants, the air was free of oxygen. The air was only enriched gradually later on with oxygen. And most of the early produced oxygen went into the bended iron formations. The air was not enriched with oxygen until much later.

This argument is not circular, you are simply misinformed about the topic.


To give creationists some slack. haha.. jk. I assume that because his design clearly worked well, he repeated it.

That doesn't sound convincing at all.


Of course.. 'time' is the ultimate answer to all of evolutions fallacies. ;)

What fallacies of evolution? I haven't even started on the fallacies of Creation. Or let's call it the Genesis lie. :D

I forget to say that the creationist explanation for the fossil record is of course the flood.

I believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6-9. Thus creationists believe that the order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood, and the local catastrophes that followed.

I (and a number of other people) have elaborated a few pages earlier why the Deluge is simply impossible. You must not have any knowledge of Geology to believe into the Deluge. There is no geological evidence for the flood, and it is impossible to have happened for a multiplicity of other reasons which you Creationists prefer to ignore.

I recommend you read this:

post #362 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9067032&postcount=362)

post #407 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9067032&postcount=407)

post #410 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9067487&postcount=410)

post #452 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9079646&postcount=452)

post #467 (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9082374&postcount=467)

I believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6-9. Thus creationists believe that the order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood, and the local catastrophes that followed.

following this line of thought, through what process do you propose fossils were sorted into the order we find them in currently?

I forget to say that the creationist explanation for the fossil record is of course the flood.

I believe that most of the fossils were formed during the year-long global Flood recorded in Genesis chapters 6-9. Thus creationists believe that the order in the fossil record is due to the order of burial during the Flood, and the local catastrophes that followed.

Where'd all the flood waters go?

The volume of the Earth's oceans is roughly 1.347 x 10^9 km3, that is 1,345,000,000 cubic kilometers of water. Standardize this down to meters, and we get 1,345,000,000,000 cubic meters of water. Assuming that all the groundwater in the world accounts for quarter again this amount (a VERY generous and overall unrealistic estimate) and the polar ice caps represent this figure once again (a slightly more realistic but still laughable assumption). We are left with a total volume of 2.0175 x 10^12 cubic meters of water.

The Earth's radius is 6,378 KM, or 6,378,000 meters. The volume of a sphere (ignoring the fact that the Earth isn't a perfect sphere: this would only make the end figure larger) is the radius cubed multiplied by four-thirds pi. This leaves us with a volume of 1.087 x 10^21 cubic meters.

Mount Everest is 8,850 meters high and, as far as we know, the tallest mountain in the world. For this mountain to be covered to a depth of 10 meters (a generous assumption) 4,000 years ago, allow us to assume we would have to have an amount of water 8,510 meters deep at sea level. Adding in this figure into the known volume of the Earth and then subtracting said volume allows us to accertain the volume of the partial sphere that the water would have to occupy.

The end figure of that calculation is 4.356 x 10^18.

Given the volume of water above and the volume of the partial sphere the missing water would have to occupy, we find that there is 4.356 x 10^18 cubic meters of water missing (I know this figure and the above are identical, the change was rounded out...that's who little water of the initial flood is still present: a rounding error).

We're left with a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of the waters required to cover the surface of the Earth up and over the tallest mountains still being around.

What happened to the rest of the water?

...My word. I feel victimised. But I understand that your messages are written with the kind intention of enlightening me out of my alleged irrational and idiotic way of thinking.

In answer to all of your latest points and questions:
To be honest I don't know enough about these aspects of science to make an informed reply. What I’ve written so far is to me the logical explanation of what I see and understand as scientific facts. After more research and possibly a n MSc in taxonomy and biodiversity, I’ll return.

following this line of thought, through what process do you propose fossils were sorted into the order we find them in currently?


Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers.

This is a quote from the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp

Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers.

This is a quote from the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_4.html

Woa, i'm positive there's a number of flagrant errors in that data. Btw, what do you mean with 'abridged'?

- Appenines, Carpathians and Pyrenees should be at least Miocene (more than 5 million years ago)
- Ural mountains are certainly Permian in age
- Sudety mountains are Carboniferous in age (part of Variscian Orogeny)
- The Himalayas began formation in the Eocene.
- The Andes and Rockies are Late Cretaceous in Age.

Btw, also note the list excluded Appalachians, Grampians, Grenville Orogens, Massif Central, Atlas mountains, etc. which are all clearly older.

PS: I recommend reading "The Evolving Continents" by Brian F. Windley on the topic.

Well, Wisjersey, I'm quoting the work of some of your people here. I don't doubt that your data came from another pro-evolutionist book. These authors here appear to be abridged (that means reviewed and complete). So there is some conflict in the data, it seems. That doesn't make the dates that the evolutionists swear by seem very accurate.

Although the rock strata do not represent a series of epochs of earth history, as is widely believed, they still follow a general pattern. For example, relatively immobile and bottom-dwelling sea creatures tend to be found in the lower strata that contain complex organisms, and the mobile land vertebrates tend to be found in the top layers.

This is a quote from the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4419.asp

I always wonder how dinosaurs and angiosperm trees could outswim trilobites and orthoceres - somehow impossible. :p
And finally, Creationists continously fail to explain how in the world could there be in-situ grown coral reefs if the sediments are supposedly the product of the Deluge.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_4.html

If that was supposed to be a rebuttal, I find it one of the most handwaving ones I have ever read. And then they go on to accuse the creationists of handwaving.
It doesn't tell me why they came to their conclusions, but seemed to say that I should just trust their judgement when they say that "These "fossils" depend only on astronomical forces; they could not be explained by the Flood"

How was that supposed to convince anyone except those who are already converted to their way of thinking?

...My word. I feel victimised. But I understand that your messages are written with the kind intention of enlightening me out of my alleged irrational and idiotic way of thinking.

In answer to all of your latest points and questions:
To be honest I don't know enough about these aspects of science to make an informed reply. What I’ve written so far is to me the logical explanation of what I see and understand as scientific facts. After more research and possibly a n MSc in taxonomy and biodiversity, I’ll return.
So you are admitting that you cannot list even ONE falsifiable hypothesis set forth by Creationism?

Anybody?

Well, Wisjersey, I'm quoting the work of some of your people here. I don't doubt that your data came from another pro-evolutionist book. These authors here appear to be abridged (that means reviewed and complete). So there is some conflict in the data, it seems. That doesn't make the dates that the evolutionists swear by seem very accurate.

Well, if you could point out where they did get their dates from? It should be in geological context. You can't point on blank dates without reasons for it.

Btw, in respect for the age of the Bohemian Massif, for example, you may want to take a look at this (http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/mineralogie/jmg_566.pdf).

EDIT: It also made me kinda suspicious to be promptly linked to a Creationist website when searching for the mentioned paper via Google...

If that was supposed to be a rebuttal, I find it one of the most handwaving ones I have ever read. And then they go on to accuse the creationists of handwaving.
It doesn't tell me why they came to their conclusions, but seemed to say that I should just trust their judgement when they say that "These "fossils" depend only on astronomical forces; they could not be explained by the Flood"

How was that supposed to convince anyone except those who are already converted to their way of thinking?

Because it's a compilation of several previous rebuttles.

Also, if you look at the bottom, it has these little things called sources that very, very few creationists ever bother with. Here's a more direct refutation of his claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_3.html

I always wonder how dinosaurs and angiosperm trees could outswim trilobites and orthoceres - somehow impossible. :p
And finally, Creationists continously fail to explain how in the world could there be in-situ grown coral reefs if the sediments are supposedly the product of the Deluge.


One other level of complexity is if the animals like trilobites were on the bottom because they preferred to be on the bottom, (rather than on the surface) and were thus buried lower.

The growth of coral reefs is in interesting phenomenom. If they always grew at the same rate that they do today, there would need a great many years to get to such a size. But I find it a bit short-sighted to make such an assumption. Particularly when we know that grow of coral depends on the level of minerals, temperature, and oxygen (to name a few). We know that these conditions have altered in the past. Thus the growth rate could easily have been faster than it was today. Given that most of the corals around the world seem to be dying out, that suggestion is non unlikely.

Because it's a compilation of several previous rebuttles.

Also, if you look at the bottom, it has these little things called sources that very, very few creationists ever bother with. Here's a more direct refutation of his claims.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH561_3.html

OK, the second one made better reading. However, they seem to be generalising quite a good deal. What about the numerous instances where there have been a mix of various fossils belonging to apparently different times? They make no reference to that. Makes it seem a bit sus to me.

OK, the second one made better reading. However, they seem to be generalising quite a good deal. What about the numerous instances where there have been a mix of various fossils belonging to apparently different times? They make no reference to that. Makes it seem a bit sus to me.

Provide a source for your claim and I'll address it.

Well, if you could point out where they did get their dates from? It should be in geological context. You can't point on blank dates without reasons for it.

Btw, in respect for the age of the Bohemian Massif, for example, you may want to take a look at this (http://www.uni-muenster.de/imperia/md/content/mineralogie/jmg_566.pdf).

EDIT: It also made me kinda suspicious to be promptly linked to a Creationist website when searching for the mentioned paper via Google...

I had a look at your reference. I read the abstract (only), and found that the last sentence of the abstract quite interesting. Obviously, these guys don't really know how old the mountains really were, hence the comment "This study indicates that caution is warranted in interpreting U–Pb zircon data of HT rocks, because isotopic rejuvenation may lead to erroneous conclusions."
Doesn't that ring any warning bells?

Provide a source for your claim and I'll address it.


sorry, I've lost it. Forget I even mentioned it.

One other level of complexity is if the animals like trilobites were on the bottom because they preferred to be on the bottom, (rather than on the surface) and were thus buried lower.

Heh, you forgot to check what Orthoceres are. They are nautiloids, hence actively swimming creatures. They were certainly not living on the ground (if they did we would have ichnofossils).

The growth of coral reefs is in interesting phenomenom. If they always grew at the same rate that they do today, there would need a great many years to get to such a size. But I find it a bit short-sighted to make such an assumption. Particularly when we know that grow of coral depends on the level of minerals, temperature, and oxygen (to name a few). We know that these conditions have altered in the past. Thus the growth rate could easily have been faster than it was today. Given that most of the corals around the world seem to be dying out, that suggestion is non unlikely.

Why is it short-sighted to make such an assumption? I'm assuming that the same laws of physics that we have today have been existing in earlier times as well and that everything runs according to them. I don't see how the growth rate could have been any faster.
Furthermore, you are ignoring where the reefs are found, on the continents, even in mountains. If you assume that these sediments were deposited during the Deluge, then the reefs can't have grown there in-situ (I can't imagine how gigantic coral reefs can grow within a single year under a few kilometers of water column - sounds very inconsistent IMHO).
Finally have you ever been pondering why corals are dying out now? Because us humans are destroying their environment!

Btw, Creationists fail to explain how marine (and limnic and fluviatile) environments survived the flood without being killed by salinity. Same problem goes for plants. Somehow, i find it very inconsistent.

I had a look at your reference. I read the abstract (only), and found that the last sentence of the abstract quite interesting. Obviously, these guys don't really know how old the mountains really were, hence the comment "This study indicates that caution is warranted in interpreting U–Pb zircon data of HT rocks, because isotopic rejuvenation may lead to erroneous conclusions."
Doesn't that ring any warning bells?

I don't think it does ring any warning bells. Why should it? It says:

Most of the new ages cluster at c. 350–340 Ma and are consistent with results previously reported for similar occurrences throughout the Bohemian Massif. This interval is generally interpreted to constrain the time of highpressure metamorphism.

That means even if they have some errors, the bulk of the data shows a largely consistent result. Of course, Creationists prey on every tiny error...

You can't say they don't know how old it is. They have pretty good idea at least.

EDIT: Oh, and there's another very good argument. These folks are talking about metamorphic rocks. That means they have been put under great pressure and temperature so that material could be changed (some minerals are only form under higher pressures. This also means that there was a significant amount of rock above the position of today which has been eroded away since then. The Variscian Orogeny was a Himalaya-type collision. If you let the Himalaya erode for a few hundred million years, it wouldn't look much different than the Bohemian Massif today.

What about the numerous instances where there have been a mix of various fossils belonging to apparently different times?

If they are numerous why do I happen to not know any example while I should?

I wasn't proving anything with such a statement. I was pointing out that in the context of a Christians' belief, your point was not logical. It only works in your belief system.

You mean from the context of your belief. You are not all Christians, and it is pure arrogance to claim that all Christians would agree with you.

I guess that's the issue, isn't it. Just how useful the Genesis account is depends on its purpose. It explains the basis of the Gospel. It does not give us all the details of exactly what happened. Why should it?

As a book of tribal mythology, it shouldn't. If, as you appear to think, it was intended to report a serious account of an event which actually happened, it should contain far more details of the whys and wherefores in order to be testable and convincing.

You seem to be suggesting that because Genesis leaves parts out (that would not contribute any more understanding to the Gospel) it is therefore invalid and untrustworthy. I don't follow your logic.

No, I am suggesting because it omits a huge amount of data required for it's stories to actually make sense [and if you are to be believed, lies about the great flood being a flood rather than a load of big waves] it's a very poor thing to hold up against a scientific theory.

If the writer didn't mean a period of a day, he could have easily written something else there, instead of an evening and morning, as have been shown in the prophetic books, where they simply write "times".

Much like how a writer who meant 'waves' wouldn't write 'rain,' Bruarong?

Thus he was most likely referring to the period of one day. This does not necessarily mean that there had to be a sunset and a sunrise. The sun is not necessarily a part of his definition.

The sun defines a day, since if there is no sun there is nothing for the Earth to orbit and no point of reference on it's rotation to work out what time of day it is. This is not to mention that a 'day' is a different length depending on what planet you are on. That didn't matter to the writers of Genesis because they thought the Earth was the centre of the universe and the sun was a light in the sky, but it matters here.

Yeah, terrible of me not to spend the hours looking it up.

I'm glad you agree, it is terrible of you not to spend five minutes with google finding me an article, especially when you expect me to run off and track down sources for you.

At anyrate, I think the assumption that coal formation needs millions of years is suspect. More like having the right conditions is the critical issue.

You think? So if a child thinks the sun works by magic then that becomes valid too?

No, I'm pointing out that your assumption (that you were a Christian) is based on your previous experience. If you can't say that you were a Christian, based on what the Bible defines as a Christian, then your assumption is not valid. Not moving the goal posts at all, just the simple rules of logic.

Your knowledge of logic is, frankly, awful. The Bible does not clearly define what a Christian is at all! You are confusing your subjective interpretation of selected passages of the Bible [which is how people really figure out what a Christian is] with the book itself.

Logic can be used within any argument, but that also will not allow us to get to some sort of proof like 1+1=2 in this case.

Logic allows us to identify which is the more sensible and useful hypothesis in the case of situations where absolute proof is impossible. Logically, a system which can produce testable hypotheses [evolution] is better than simply shrugging our shoulders and saying 'Well, it must have been God.' We can also logically evaluate two systems that can generate a testable hypothesis using Occam's Razor if both of them have similar predictive power, but since Creationism has no predictive power at all we don't need to worry about that.

My biggest complaint with your bias stems from my observation that you are using your bias to "prove" creation false. I find that not logical.

I'm using creation's fundamental uselessness as a scientific theory, flaws in an account which is an integral part of it [the myth of Noah's Ark] and the fact that all your arguments are flawed, hypocritical or based on things you claim to have read somewhere or have just made up. By this, I am demonstrating that the creation account is utterly irrational. Your labelling arguments you can't handle as 'bias' is getting a little old.

I'm not sure what makes you think that creation science doesn't have a hypothesis. Of course it's going to be different from the evolutionary one, so you may not recognise it. But it's there alright. I have posted it several times earlier.

No, you have not. Creation 'science' cannot generate valid hypotheses because creation has no predictable mechanism. Creation was supposedly caused by a being so complex and powerful that its mechanisms are beyond our comprehension and its power without limit [you're used that argument yourself several times], therefore we cannot make predictions based on that creature's actions because it is capable of doing whatever it feels like. There is no way to devise an experiment to test such a mechanism, therefore Creation is impossible to test, because Creation's mechanism is God and God is untestable.

You too are short of proof. That is a limitation we both have. Your accusations based on this are therefore invalid.

Oh man, that's hilarious. I have entire fields of science and tens of thousands of research papers published in peer-reviewed journals. You think my proof is 'limited' compared to your subjective interpretation of selected passages of a single ancient book of tribal mythology, and a whole load of arguments you admit you made up out of thin air?

So you do use waves. What was that about me being the only one with the waves theory?

For crying out loud, evolution has nothing to do with waves! It does not theorise a global flood of any kind, because it is a theory that describes how life adapts to it's environment. Your attempt to make geology part of evolution won't fool anyone. Large waves are not required by the theory of evolution any more than colour television is.

Further, the waves created by K-T were part of the effect of an enormous physical impactor hitting the Earth at great speed, an entirely predicable physical phenomenon. They are not the same as your silly 'God-waves that cover the highest mountains but leave no trace of their existence or the forces that generated them and aren't even mentioned in the Genesis account' theory.

As for there being no reasons for them, that is something I never said. Who knows, it could have been an asteroid, or maybe something else.

Now you're simply rewriting the account to suit your utterly unsupported theory that there were waves involved in the flood myth. There is no reason for use to think that a massive asteroid impact occurred during the flood even if we make the ridiculous assumption that it occurred at all. Anyway, in order to cause a wave that covered the tops of the highest mountains the asteroid would have to hit so hard it would exterminate all life on Earth by itself and burn the Ark to a cinder.

I certainly don't see why the Bible HAD to include every detail in the account. As I pointed out before, it's not necessary for its purpose.

And it just happened to exclude every single detail that would make it make sense, yes. This does appear to be your argument.

And why are you posting half a rebuttal?

I would really appreciate if a proponent of Creationism or ID would list the testable, falsifiable hypotheses set forth by Creationism. If Creationism really is a scientific theory, why has nobody been able to present so much as a single such hypothesis?

I'm not a Creationist but I could think of a falsifiable hypothesis.

A few days ago I mentioned turtles, and that their ancestry is uncertain as of now. As a Creationist you could set up the hypothesis that transitional forms between potential ancestors and turtles will never be found because they were created separately. In the moment transitional forms are found, the hypothesis is falsified.
Then again, I reckon that 15 years ago, you could have made a similar hypothesis about the origin of whales. In the meantime it would have been falsified though since we clearly have found transitional forms.
In fact, 150 years ago, you could have made similar predictions about virtually all transitional forms, but most of them have been falsified in the meantime since we have a multiplicity of transitional forms.

Of course, with this tendency, that would not make a very good argument (i think this is called 'God of the gaps'). It would be something like "Ok, most life evolved on it's own, but turtles were created separately by God". Doesn't sound feasible in my eyes.

ahem....
i reject your realities and replace them with my own.

ahem....
i reject your realities and replace them with my own.
Lol mythbusters

ahem....
i reject your realities and replace them with my own.

Actually, yes, that sorta is the concept of Creationism...

Just for the hell of it :D

MC Hawking - F--- The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
F--- the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
F---, f---, f---,
f--- the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
F--- the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, f--- them all motherf---ers.
F---ing punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
F--- that!
If them superstitious motherf---ers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
F---ing creationists.
F--- them.

I'm not a Creationist but I could think of a falsifiable hypothesis.

A few days ago I mentioned turtles, and that their ancestry is uncertain as of now. As a Creationist you could set up the hypothesis that transitional forms between potential ancestors and turtles will never be found because they were created separately. In the moment transitional forms are found, the hypothesis is falsified.
Then again, I reckon that 15 years ago, you could have made a similar hypothesis about the origin of whales. In the meantime it would have been falsified though since we clearly have found transitional forms.
In fact, 150 years ago, you could have made similar predictions about virtually all transitional forms, but most of them have been falsified in the meantime since we have a multiplicity of transitional forms.

Of course, with this tendency, that would not make a very good argument (i think this is called 'God of the gaps'). It would be something like "Ok, most life evolved on it's own, but turtles were created separately by God". Doesn't sound feasible in my eyes.
Well, it's also not a valid scientific hypothesis because the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Just because we haven't YET found a particular fossil or transitional form doesn't mean it's not out there. It also doesn't mean that it is, of course, but the fact remains that it is still not a valid, testable, falsifiable scientific hypothesis.

I really appreciate you giving it a try, though! I just wish the Creationists would do so :(.

Just for the hell of it :D

MC Hawking - F--- The Creationists
Trash Talk
Ah yeah, here we go again!
Damn! This is some funky shit that I be laying down on your ass.
This one goes out to all my homey's working in the field of
evolutionary science.
Check it!

Verse 1
F--- the damn creationists, those bunch of dumb-ass bitches,
every time I think of them my trigger finger itches.
They want to have their bullshit, taught in public class,
Stephen J. Gould should put his foot right up their ass.
Noah and his ark, Adam and his Eve,
straight up fairy stories even children don't believe.
I'm not saying there's no god, that's not for me to say,
all I'm saying is the Earth was not made in a day.

Chorus
F---, f---, f---,
f--- the Creationists.

Trash Talk
Break it down.
Ah damn, this is a funky jam!
I'm about ready to kick this bitch back in.
Check it.

Verse 2
F--- the damn creationists I say it with authority,
because kicking their punk asses be me paramount priority.
Them wack-ass bitches say, "evolution's just a theory",
they best step off, them brainless fools, I'll give them cause to fear me.
The cosmos is expanding every second, every day,
but their minds are shrinking as they close their eyes and pray.
They call their bullshit science like the word could give them cred,
if them bitches be scientists then cap me in the head.

Chorus

Trash Talk
Bass!
Bring that shit in!
Ah yeah, that's right, f--- them all motherf---ers.
F---ing punk ass creationists trying to set scientific thought back 400 years.
F--- that!
If them superstitious motherf---ers want to have that kind of party,
I'm going to put my dick in the mashed potatoes.
F---ing creationists.
F--- them.


Heh... Thanks, I found his page and that was some of the funnyest stuff ever.

I would really appreciate if a proponent of Creationism or ID would list the testable, falsifiable hypotheses set forth by Creationism. If Creationism really is a scientific theory, why has nobody been able to present so much as a single such hypothesis?Possibly because Creationism (not so much as ID) is baised on Faith. To gather and show evidence is to destroy "Faith" and replace it with Knowledge, a totally different thing. God (Christian God, can't really speak for other Religions) said he wants our Faith. That is why the proof is ambiguous. Think of Moses. He offered all these proof that God exsists but the Pharoah relied on his wise men who, with their "science" debunked the miracles until it got to the point where the Pharoah lost his first born son. Kinda sounds like today's pronouncement of 'Miracles' someone claims a miracle... people go forth and debunk it... then something else happens and the scientists rush forward and debunks it... until Arrmageddon... then when people stand before God, I can just hear all the 'scientists' proclaim... "You did not give use enough proof to get our worship, thus the blame falls on you."

so until that time, there can be no Hypotheses on Creationism because it is Faith, Belief, and Trust. things that cannot be proven. for once that happens, it's Knowledge, Learned, and Proven.

ID however is saying Evolution is the 'How.' If you want a Hypotheses on ID, I propose the theory of Parallel design. Look at anything man has made and improved upon. What God has set in motion is a self-evolving, self-learning, and self-building form.

We as man are getting close to AI advanced enough to write itself. for Programs to design and build faster computers.

Take a component out of the computer and it's performace goes down. same as Nature, remove a species and not replace it, suddenly the whole ecosystem becomes unbalanced. creatures that were prey to that removed species become dominant because there is nothing to hold their numbers down and the eco system's performance also suffers. and like a self repair program, nature compensates and corrects the problem. almost like tech support.

Possibly because Creationism (not so much as ID) is baised on Faith. To gather and show evidence is to destroy "Faith" and replace it with Knowledge, a totally different thing. God (Christian God, can't really speak for other Religions) said he wants our Faith. That is why the proof is ambiguous. Think of Moses. He offered all these proof that God exsists but the Pharoah relied on his wise men who, with their "science" debunked the miracles until it got to the point where the Pharoah lost his first born son. Kinda sounds like today's pronouncement of 'Miracles' someone claims a miracle... people go forth and debunk it... then something else happens and the scientists rush forward and debunks it... until Arrmageddon... then when people stand before God, I can just hear all the 'scientists' proclaim... "You did not give use enough proof to get our worship, thus the blame falls on you."

If I get to the pearly gates and God asks me why I lived as an agnostic, I can tell him quite simply and honestly that I lived as I was designed. My critical thinking, my rationality, my ability to understand and interact with nature, these are all skills that I have been endowed with. Whether by a God or by natural forces, that is how I am built. If God finds my being so reprehensible, or if He feels I should be ashamed of using the very gifts that distinguish me (and other humans) from all other known forms of life, then it's probably best for He and I not to spend eternity together anyhow.

As for debunking miracles, you should be on your knees thanking science for all its debunking. If it were not for the debunking of miracles, we would still be treating plagues with prayer. Mentally ill individuals would be "healed" through violent exorcisms. Weather phenomenon and natural disasters would be considered the result of the inevitable will of God, and we would have no understanding of them or ability to predict them.

Every time somebody bitches about how science attacks the "miraculous" I am tempted to remind them of all the amazing and beautiful scientific acheivements we enjoy, many of which are probably responsible for you and I being here in the first place. I am tempted to point out the dangers of many past "miracles," and all the ways our lives are improved by explaining the world rather than tossing up our hands and blaming it all on magic zombies and talking snakes.

But then I am moved to pity. People who long for "miracles" are usually those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the beauty that already exists in the real world. They miss out on the true magesty of their own existence. They overlook the wonder of the universe. They live in a dull, colorless, hopeless world, where they are only able to find beauty in fictions and fairytales. It would be cruel of me to expect them to abandon their illusions, since they are blinded to the real beauties around them.


so until that time, there can be no Hypotheses on Creationism because it is Faith, Belief, and Trust. things that cannot be proven. for once that happens, it's Knowledge, Learned, and Proven.

ID however is saying Evolution is the 'How.'

There is no distinction between Creationism and ID. They are two names for the same thing. "Intelligent Design" is a name adopted to give the illusion of credibility to the same primitive myths that ignorant humans have worshiped for centuries.


If you want a Hypotheses on ID, I propose the theory of Parallel design. Look at anything man has made and improved upon. What God has set in motion is a self-evolving, self-learning, and self-building form.

We as man are getting close to AI advanced enough to write itself. for Programs to design and build faster computers.

Take a component out of the computer and it's performace goes down. same as Nature, remove a species and not replace it, suddenly the whole ecosystem becomes unbalanced. creatures that were prey to that removed species become dominant because there is nothing to hold their numbers down and the eco system's performance also suffers. and like a self repair program, nature compensates and corrects the problem. almost like tech support.
The reason I asked for testable hypotheses from Creationists is because they are asking for their theory to be recognized as the equal of evolutionary theory, big bang theory, or the many other scientific theories of life and reality. If they want such recognition then I think it is only fair for them to play by the same rules as everybody else, and that means presenting testable and falsifiable hypotheses.

As for your "parallel design" dealie, I fail to see how that fits the requirements for a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. That seems to be a simple case of creating an anthropomorphized God/Creator myth based on the observed behavior of human beings.

GMC Military Arms
And why are you posting half a rebuttal?

It has become obvious to me that we will only go around in circles in our debating, unless I am prepared to give measured and thoughtful and researched answers to your points. This will require some time. I have appreciated the effort that you have put into it.

I also realized that as much as I enjoy this, I do have many other things that require my time and that can only be procrastinated (if that is a word) so long. (I am currently supposed to be writing a paper to be submitted soon.)

That is why I only got around to posting half a rebuttal. I was also getting frustrated with my old computer that was dropping out and losing some of my stuff (because the posts were so long). I am saving up for a new computer.

I'll be back from time to time, of course, now that I know I have found some people who seem willing for a debate.

Never let it be said that creationism is extinct. It has far less funding and people, and it does have a lot of catching up to do in many areas. I also think it a bit silly of me to try debating in areas where I have learned little. Not only will I sound vague and unconvincing, I may actually make creationism look bad. Genetics and biochemistry, particularly in microbiology, is my area of prefference. Anytime I wander off path, I am at a disadvantage. For example, now that I have studied genetics, I can see for myself where evolution and creation have their strong points and their weak points. The moment I get into geology and paleontology, I have to rely on websites and books, in other words, the interpretations of others. Most of the literature out there is written from an evolutionary point of view. Thus, even if you could imagine creation being the truth, you should see that it would be at a disadvantage. I would have to determine the holes (usually not presented) in the evolutionary text books, rather than looking at the original data. I'm not saying that is a fault of evolutionism. Just the way it is right now. Anyway, that is my rationale for sticking to my own area of preference in future debates.

It has become obvious to me that we will only go around in circles in our debating, unless I am prepared to give measured and thoughtful and researched answers to your points. This will require some time. I have appreciated the effort that you have put into it.

I also realized that as much as I enjoy this, I do have many other things that require my time and that can only be procrastinated (if that is a word) so long. (I am currently supposed to be writing a paper to be submitted soon.)

That is why I only got around to posting half a rebuttal. I was also getting frustrated with my old computer that was dropping out and losing some of my stuff (because the posts were so long). I am saving up for a new computer.

I'll be back from time to time, of course, now that I know I have found some people who seem willing for a debate.

Well, take your time, I'm have other things to do as well.


Never let it be said that creationism is extinct. It has far less funding and people, and it does have a lot of catching up to do in many areas.

I don't think it's a matter of money, from what I know some Creationist organizations are much better funded than many palaeontological institutes. It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of evidence - which is obviously speaking evolution language.

I also think it a bit silly of me to try debating in areas where I have learned little. Not only will I sound vague and unconvincing, I may actually make creationism look bad.

I think you have a point there. Specifically, I think that's the fundamental flaw all the Creationist websites: using arguments that are easily debunked.

Genetics and biochemistry, particularly in microbiology, is my area of prefference. Anytime I wander off path, I am at a disadvantage. For example, now that I have studied genetics, I can see for myself where evolution and creation have their strong points and their weak points.

I've been wondering... isn't that the problem of the whole debate: that no matter what field you chose (genetics, geology, palaeontology etc. - we haven't talked about astronomy btw.!), things are pretty complicated and this certainly makes a public discussion kinda difficult unless you have some insights into the topic. And people without these insights are certainly disadvantaged. I reckon my knowledge about genetics is limited as well.

The moment I get into geology and paleontology, I have to rely on websites and books, in other words, the interpretations of others. Most of the literature out there is written from an evolutionary point of view.

That makes it almost sound as if science would be biased. From what i can say, it's more like evidence is biased. What I mean by that is, once you get into palaeo-ecology and taphonomy, you will see that old Earth and evolution become necessities to assume.

Thus, even if you could imagine creation being the truth, you should see that it would be at a disadvantage.

You know I tried to imagine what things should look like according to Creationism, and what should be observed, but from what I can tell it is non-consistent with what we see. Btw, I wished that Creationist would go this approach.

I would have to determine the holes (usually not presented) in the evolutionary text books, rather than looking at the original data. I'm not saying that is a fault of evolutionism. Just the way it is right now. Anyway, that is my rationale for sticking to my own area of preference in future debates.

Well, I have looked into the original evidence (at least some of it), and I find any association of fossils/strata with a Deluge scenario highly implausible.
Regarding your field, as said, my knowledge of it is fairly limited. I however have heard of the molecular clock and the idea that this can be used to verify/falsify the hypotheses on evolution based on morphological evidence. This might be something worth of discussing here:
Two amazing examples for these are the close relationship of whales and artiodactyles as well as birds and crocodiles. Genetically and paleontological evidence is said to fit smoothly. I know you can't talk much about the paleontological side (I can and it must say i find it very convincing - especially if you look at the morphology), but you may want to approach this from the DNA side instead. So, what do you think?

If I get to the pearly gates and God asks me why I lived as an agnostic, I can tell him quite simply and honestly that I lived as I was designed. My critical thinking, my rationality, my ability to understand and interact with nature, these are all skills that I have been endowed with. Whether by a God or by natural forces, that is how I am built. If God finds my being so reprehensible, or if He feels I should be ashamed of using the very gifts that distinguish me (and other humans) from all other known forms of life, then it's probably best for He and I not to spend eternity together anyhow.actually, you won't be able to say anything for at that time, it would be too late. so yes, I agree, you and God may not spend eternity together, but then again, who knows what the future holds.

As for debunking miracles, you should be on your knees thanking science for all its debunking. If it were not for the debunking of miracles, we would still be treating plagues with prayer. Mentally ill individuals would be "healed" through violent exorcisms. Weather phenomenon and natural disasters would be considered the result of the inevitable will of God, and we would have no understanding of them or ability to predict them. down on your knees thanking science... so you admit to worshipping science. :p

and for all of your examples, there are recored cases of it actually happening.

Every time somebody bitches about how science attacks the "miraculous" I am tempted to remind them of all the amazing and beautiful scientific acheivements we enjoy, many of which are probably responsible for you and I being here in the first place. I am tempted to point out the dangers of many past "miracles," and all the ways our lives are improved by explaining the world rather than tossing up our hands and blaming it all on magic zombies and talking snakes. and now you know how everyone feels when you cry "EVIDENCE! WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE!"

But then I am moved to pity. People who long for "miracles" are usually those who are unable (or unwilling) to see the beauty that already exists in the real world. They miss out on the true magesty of their own existence. They overlook the wonder of the universe. They live in a dull, colorless, hopeless world, where they are only able to find beauty in fictions and fairytales. It would be cruel of me to expect them to abandon their illusions, since they are blinded to the real beauties around them.actually, it is those who are so dependant on Science that they cannot see the real beauty. its those believe in the Miracles that look up in the Starry sky with Wonder and Amazement while it's those Hard-Core scientist who look up into the starry sky with just wonder ("I wonder what's for dinner", "I wonder if I set my VCR tape up correctly." "I wonder how much asprin to take to get rid of this Kink in my neck.") It's those who look for the formulas and not at life itself that deserve the real pity.

There is no distinction between Creationism and ID. They are two names for the same thing. "Intelligent Design" is a name adopted to give the illusion of credibility to the same primitive myths that ignorant humans have worshiped for centuries.there is a subtle difference. Creationism (defined by most people here) is the belief that Genesis is the absolute truth. What is written is what actually happened.

ID people (like me) say Evolution is the process but God started it all.

Both fall under Thiesm, that God (or some greater being) had a hand in the creation of life.

The reason I asked for testable hypotheses from Creationists is because they are asking for their theory to be recognized as the equal of evolutionary theory, big bang theory, or the many other scientific theories of life and reality. If they want such recognition then I think it is only fair for them to play by the same rules as everybody else, and that means presenting testable and falsifiable hypotheses.oh, I just tossed out the first thing that popped into my mind. To me it's really illogical to "prove" it for as I said, Faith is Belief, more emotional baised. Science is Logical, not touching faith or emotions.

As for your "parallel design" dealie, I fail to see how that fits the requirements for a testable and falsifiable hypothesis. That seems to be a simple case of creating an anthropomorphized God/Creator myth based on the observed behavior of human beings.as I said, it wasn't really thougth through. so wasn't expecting it to stand up to a stiff breeze.

except that we cannot test evolution either. can only reverse engineer it. see what happened by connecting the similarities and seeing the difference. the Evolution of Technology is following the same path ways. once a piece of technology reaches it's zenith, then it becomes a dead end. while others evolve onward and even "mutate" into something else.

There is no proof that ID (not the strict "Bible is everything" outlook) and evolution cannot co-exsist in either side of the argument.

JuNii, just one thing you should know. Without those "hardcore" scientists who deserve your "pity", and the engineers too, you would still be living in mud huts sacrificing goats everytime there was a thunderstorm.

I've never seen a priest contribute anything to the development of any technology after all.

<snip>
There is no distinction between Creationism and ID. They are two names for the same thing. "Intelligent Design" is a name adopted to give the illusion of credibility to the same primitive myths that ignorant humans have worshiped for centuries.
<snip>

Help out the newb here: Is ID the same as Theistic Evolutionism?

JuNii, just one thing you should know. Without those "hardcore" scientists who deserve your "pity", and the engineers too, you would still be living in mud huts sacrificing goats everytime there was a thunderstorm.

I've never seen a priest contribute anything to the development of any technology after all.

Do you know who Georges Lemaitre was? Catholic priest and co-developer of the Big-Bang Theory...

Help out the newb here: Is ID the same as Theistic Evolutionism?

ID is either [i] 'Creationism in a clown suit,' the argument that a designer created billions of miracles over billions of years to make it look like evolution was occurring even though he was doing it all or [ii] Evolution theory with the word 'God' stuck on the end.

Help out the newb here: Is ID the same as Theistic Evolutionism?Not really. Theistic Evolutionism is (as far as I know) the belief that God set various processes--like evolution and selection--in motion, but that natural forces are still at work and still explain the world we see. Basically, "God" is the name given to the originating force or forces that started things off, but the natural world proceeds in a way that is accessable to science. It still anthropomorphizes in a totally unfounded way (since it is unnecessary for the originating force(s) to be a being or beings), but it's closer to reality than ID.

But I think the terms are getting pretty jumbled these days, so some people might use Theistic Evolutionism differently now. I dunno.

JuNii, just one thing you should know. Without those "hardcore" scientists who deserve your "pity", and the engineers too, you would still be living in mud huts sacrificing goats everytime there was a thunderstorm.

I've never seen a priest contribute anything to the development of any technology after all.
There have been many religious scientists across history, and some of them were also religious leaders for their particular sect. Being religious doesn't disqualify a person from making technological advances...let's be fair, here.

JuNii, just one thing you should know. Without those "hardcore" scientists who deserve your "pity", and the engineers too, you would still be living in mud huts sacrificing goats everytime there was a thunderstorm.

I've never seen a priest contribute anything to the development of any technology after all.The "Hardcore" Scientists I refere to are the Fanatics that cannot see anything execpt the science. Refuse to believe anything they cannot prove scientifically. They have no faith, no desire to believe in anything and will refuse to allow anyone else their faith and beliefs solely on the fact that it isn't scientifically sound. will not rely on Instinct or abstract things like Beauty or "gut feelings" because to them, they don't exsist.

bascially, the Religious Radicals counterparts. And don't think they don't exsist. for they do.

Personally I beleive in Creationism

but there is no sense in arguing because I also beleive in evolution

the two can exist together

there is no point in fighting

I think people finally got smart enough to figure that out

ID is either [i] 'Creationism in a clown suit,' the argument that a designer created billions of miracles over billions of years to make it look like evolution was occurring even though he was doing it all or [ii] Evolution theory with the word 'God' stuck on the end.or stuck at the beginning, depending on which end you're looking at. :D

but one thing for certain. there are those that believe the bible Literally. and others that accept that Science is only revealing the "how God did it."

There have been many religious scientists across history, and some of them were also religious leaders for their particular sect. Being religious doesn't disqualify a person from making technological advances...let's be fair, here.
Some people on these boards explained it to me as how I define it. ID being that God used Evolution to create us. and that Creationists are the Bible Literalist.

And to be fair Bottle,... yeah, I pity the Bible Literalist and Religious Fanatics too.

Creationism (defined by most people here) is the belief that Genesis is the absolute truth. What is written is what actually happened.

Just out of curiositity, have you ever bothered to actually read the book of Genesis some time? It doesn't take a scientist to realize all that stuff cannot have happened and is totally inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. Read it closely, it reflects the knowledge of 2,500 years ago: virtually no understanding! I also find the Creationist view very sad because they wish to close their eyes from the wonders of the past which according to them never happened.

Just out of curiositity, have you ever bothered to actually read the book of Genesis some time? It doesn't take a scientist to realize all that stuff cannot have happened and is totally inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. Read it closely, it reflects the knowledge of 2,500 years ago: virtually no understanding! I also find the Creationist view very sad because they wish to close their eyes from the wonders of the past which according to them never happened.

Yeah...how far do you understand the Universe? Just because the human race doesn't know about it doesn't mean it couldn't have existed.

I say all theories about the beginning of the world will forever stand - because we have no way of proving or disproving any of them. We should drop these meaningless ideas and focus on solving the world's real problems, like poverty and war.

Yeah...how far do you understand the Universe? Just because the human race doesn't know about it doesn't mean it couldn't have existed.

I say all theories about the beginning of the world will forever stand - because we have no way of proving or disproving any of them. We should drop these meaningless ideas and focus on solving the world's real problems, like poverty and war.
The begining of the world ... we deffinatly can gather enough data to reduce the posibilities of anything else to a rediculously small ammount

The begining of the universe ... bigger task maybe maybe not

Do you know who Georges Lemaitre was? Catholic priest and co-developer of the Big-Bang Theory...

Is that so? Hmmm, some searching has proven you to be correct. I stand corrected.

Okay Creationist folks, let's talk about the bible. I've taken a look at Genesis and made a commented version. Perhaps you will then see why it is inconsistent and shouldn't be taken literal.

001:001 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.

This phrase reflects the heliocentric world view of 2500 years ago "Earth and the rest of the universe."

001:002 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was
upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon
the face of the waters.

001:003 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Allright, there comes the light. But, where does it come from? It needs a source. There's no sun yet.

001:004 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
light from the darkness.

001:005 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called
Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

What seriously cracks me up here is that how can there be light without a source? And apparently Earth itself existed before the creation of light. Either is inconsistent with our world.

001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.

So according to the bible, the sky is a solid hemisphere that is spanning across a flat disc, and above it there is water. Again, not consistent with our world - what about space?

001:008 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the
morning were the second day.

001:009 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered
together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it
was so.

If everything below the solid hemisphere was filled with water, where does the air come from?

001:010 And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together
of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.

Is that all the bible has to say about land and sea? What about the polar ice caps?

[quote]001:011 And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb
yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his
kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.

001:012 And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed
after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in
itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Okay, now we have plants. I wonder how seeding without pollinatoring can work. Also interesting the bible apparently only talks about Angiosperm plants. It fails to mention conifers, farns, cycads, algae etc. What about those? Btw, I also wonder how plants were able of enriching the atmosphere with oxygen in a single day?

001:013 And the evening and the morning were the third day.

001:014 And God said, Let there be lights in the firmament of the
heaven to divide the day from the night; and let them be for
signs, and for seasons, and for days, and years:

As mentioned earlier, how can there be light without a source?

001:015 And let them be for lights in the firmament of the heaven to
give light upon the earth: and it was so.

001:016 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the
day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars
also.

The bible also ignores that the Moon is not a source of light, it merely reflects light. Also funny that sun and moon are created before the stars (of which some are known to be significantly older). And, lastly, what about the other planets in our solar system, and about the myriads of other planets in the rest of the universe, and what about asteroids, comets, etc.?

001:017 And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light
upon the earth,

001:018 And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the
light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good.

What I wonder about is why does light and darkness has to be divided a second time? Didn't that already happen on the first day?

001:019 And the evening and the morning were the fourth day.

001:020 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving
creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth
in the open firmament of heaven.

Ok now we get marine life, and strangely we also get birds at the same day. I wonder though how there can be birds without amphibians, reptiles and dinosaurs first? And what about other flying animals, such as insects and bats, or extinct ones like Pterodactyls? Oh Lord, didn't you skip awfully lot here?

001:021 And God created great whales, and every living creature that
moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their
kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that
it was good.

Now we get whales without land mammals before them... how very odd.

001:022 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the
earth.

Yes they are told to multiply, but nothing is mentioned on the food chain.

001:023 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

001:024 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature
after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the
earth after his kind: and it was so.

001:025 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle
after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth
after his kind: and God saw that it was good.

Ok now we see how mammals are created. I wonder what 'the creeping thing' is refering to, does this include amphibians, reptiles, worms, snails etc., and what about all the extinct groups? (I find this vagueness highly frustrating). Again, no mentioning of stratigraphic order. Btw, I wonder what is meant with 'The beast of the earth after his kind' (singular!). Is this refering to the Behemoth, or just a translation error?!?

001:026 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over
all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth
upon the earth.

I wonder what is meant by 'in OUR image' phrase. Since when is God plural, or are there several gods (which would go against that 'thou shallst have no other gods besides me')? Btw, what about Lucy, the Neanderthals, or those dwarf people from Flores?

001:027 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.

Ok, so Humans are created, but why are they already created as male and female if that story with Adam and Eve hasn't happened yet? And also, didn't males and females exist long before humans?

001:028 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and
multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

001:029 And God said, Behold, I have given you every herb bearing
seed, which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree,
in the which is the fruit of a tree yielding seed; to you it
shall be for meat.

001:030 And to every beast of the earth, and to every fowl of the air,
and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth, wherein there
is life, I have given every green herb for meat: and it was
so.

If that does mean that all animals were herbivores, then I find this highly inconsistent with the food chain. It certainly wasn't so.

001:031 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was
very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

002:001 Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host
of them.

I wonder how God's creation could ever be 'finished', considering some 99% of all species that ever existed are extinct now, and many stars went to supernova billions of years ago, and other stuff. When was this moment when everything was "finished"?

002:002 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made;
and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he
had made.

I'm sorry I have to ask this, but why does God, as an omnipotent being, need rest? Sounds too anthropomorphic for my taste.

002:003 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because
that in it he had rested from all his work which God created
and made.

Ok, that's it. We're left with a multiplicity of unanswered questions and strange anomalies we don't see in our world. Somehow i find this very inconsistent with reality, and it's much more plausible to assume the universe is some 14 billion years old, not just some 6000 years.

Wisjersey

I don't think it's a matter of money, from what I know some Creationist organizations are much better funded than many palaeontological institutes. It's not a matter of money, it's a matter of evidence - which is obviously speaking evolution language.

I don't have the numbers to prove my point here, but it seems like every university has its state funded disciplines in evolutionary theory. I have studied at universities in Australia, US, and Germany. I've never seen a creationist department (even the theologian ones), let alone any research lab that is dedicated to finding answers to the questions that evolutionists are demanding.

That makes it almost sound as if science would be biased. From what i can say, it's more like evidence is biased. What I mean by that is, once you get into palaeo-ecology and taphonomy, you will see that old Earth and evolution become necessities to assume.

I have read enough to know that the text books that every student of science must read are rather biased. They even tend to give the impression that we can explain everything. I have been quite shocked at times to discover some of my students getting through to the end of their bachelor, still thinking that we just about know everything there is to know, so what is the point of going into research, unless you want to cure cancer and make bigger computers (obviously I have exaggerated a little, just to make the point).
An example of the bias is when a text book writes something like 'the earliest life form must have looked a little like......' If you can't see the bias there........I suggest you have a blindness.

You know I tried to imagine what things should look like according to Creationism, and what should be observed, but from what I can tell it is non-consistent with what we see. Btw, I wished that Creationist would go this approach.

If you like, you could try to give me an example that would not be too distant from my area of research, and I shall try to see what I can make of it.

This might be something worth of discussing here: Two amazing examples for these are the close relationship of whales and artiodactyles as well as birds and crocodiles. Genetically and paleontological evidence is said to fit smoothly. I know you can't talk much about the paleontological side (I can and it must say i find it very convincing - especially if you look at the morphology), but you may want to approach this from the DNA side instead. So, what do you think?

I wouldn't say that the genetic data fits well, based on the little knowledge that I have of eukaryotic genes. If you were to compare the genomes (supposing we had them) of a bird and a crocodile, you would barely even begin to know where the homology is. There are the housekeeping genes, ones that we are likely to share with the crocodiles also. But that is not good evidence for common ancestry. You have warm blooded and cold blooded differences. perhaps it could be argued that humans are closer to birds than crocodiles on that basis. Otherwise, you have to argue that there was more than one occasion where cold blooded animals gained a series of miraculous mutations that allowed them to develope warm blood (or more precisely, a complicated mechanism for maintaining the blood at 37 degrees Celcius). This is pushing evolution into an even less likely scenario.

Wisjersey

Wow, such a long quote. I only have time right now to discuss one point.

Allright, there comes the light. But, where does it come from? It needs a source. There's no sun yet. What seriously cracks me up here is that how can there be light without a source? And apparently Earth itself existed before the creation of light. Either is inconsistent with our world

I would agree with you, that if the writer was seriously trying to convince the reader that there was a morning and an evening (as we know it) without the sun being present, then he has to be seriously short of intellect. However, if you look at it from a Christian perspective, he is ascribing all of creation to the hands of God. So he begins with the definition of a day--evening and morning. It makes sense that God would make a day, and then put the sun in place to fit His designs. Alternatively, God could have made the sun, set the earth to orbit, and said, oh, look, that will do, there is the day and the night. But the writer correctly ascribes the design of a single day to God. Thus the sun is also the handiwork of God, as is time. God exists both inside and outside of time, since time is his creation.

I find his reference to light, before the creation of the sun, rather mysterious and fascinating. Later, the writers of the gospels and those various other parts of scripture described seeing Jesus and God and even angels as having light eminating from their bodies, or their presence. Thus, in God's creation of the world, it is likely that he made light (as we recognise it) before he made the sun. We often think of the sun as being the source of our light, and so it is, but the scripture serves as a good reminder to me that God is the source of the sun (I.e He put it there).

This might be something worth of discussing here: Two amazing examples for these are the close relationship of whales and artiodactyles as well as birds and crocodiles. Genetically and paleontological evidence is said to fit smoothly. I know you can't talk much about the paleontological side (I can and it must say i find it very convincing - especially if you look at the morphology), but you may want to approach this from the DNA side instead. So, what do you think?

I wouldn't say that the genetic data fits well, based on the little knowledge that I have of eukaryotic genes. If you were to compare the genomes (supposing we had them) of a bird and a crocodile, you would barely even begin to know where the homology is. There are the housekeeping genes, ones that we are likely to share with the crocodiles also. But that is not good evidence for common ancestry. You have warm blooded and cold blooded differences. perhaps it could be argued that humans are closer to birds than crocodiles on that basis.

First of all, I have a question, what do you mean with housekeeping genes?

Ok, let me elaborate morphological similarities - ie why birds and crocodiles are morphologically very similar. The first feature is the presence of the antorbital fenestra (I have to add this feature is closed in advanced crocodiles, but you can see this in Jurassic and Cretaceous Crocs). The presence of an antorbital fenestra is a feature that all Archosaurs share. There is no evidence it appeared in any other group, so it's likely to assume that the Archosaurs form a natural group. Another feature which you can however see only in living forms is a four-chambered heart.
The next important feature is the so-called mesotarsal joint between the calcaneum and the astragalus, which is only found in dinosaurs, birds, pterodactlys and a number of related archosaurs. The interesting point is that Crocodiles (and a significant number of other archosaurs) don't have it, they have a so-called crurotarsal joint instead. It is logical to assume that you have two branching lineages - one leading to birds one leading to crocodiles. Within the mesotarsal archosaurs, only dinosaurs and birds have a pierced acetabulum. Also, look at the legs of birds, they are very similar to theropod legs. So by having this combination of features, birds are dinosaurs. (Note: I have to admit there is ongoing discussion about the position of birds inside the group of dinosaurs, though).

Btw, another argument for this evolution to have taken place is that this is in chronological order (these events took place during the Triassic), and again from the Creationist side I don't see a point in God creating and making lifeforms extinct in chronological order. And morphologically, birds and mammals are much less similar (again, this coincides also with the chronological order within the fossil record).

Regarding the cold-blooded and warm-blooded discussion, I think this is not an argument against evolution, rather it is one for evolution. The skeletal anatomy can help here to elaborate. The morphology of theropod dinosaurs hints at an agile lifestyle. Footprints hint that even larger predators could run with speeds up to 40km/h. No cold-blodded reptile physiology could achieve that, hence these Dinosaurs were almost certainly warmblooded. I have to admit it's unknown where warmbloodedness arose according to this, since things don't look that clear for other dinosaurs.

Otherwise, you have to argue that there was more than one occasion where cold blooded animals gained a series of miraculous mutations that allowed them to develope warm blood (or more precisely, a complicated mechanism for maintaining the blood at 37 degrees Celcius). This is pushing evolution into an even less likely scenario.

Well, I'm arguing exactly this, because birds and mammals didn't come from nothing (we have the fossil record, remember?). Warmbloodedness very likely evolved convergently in dinosaurs and mammals. In fact this appeared a third time, namely in tunas, which are very fast swimmers. You can see that there is a connection between lifestyle and physiology, exactly what we would expect according to evolution (ie adaption to the environment).

Wisjersey

First of all, I have a question, what do you mean with housekeeping genes?

What I understand as a housekeeping gene is a gene that is required for cell survival. An example could be one of the genes required for ATP production. A mutation in this gene (a mutation that disrupts the function of the gene product) will result in the inability of the cell to produce the energy required for the multitude of functions that are dependent on ATP hydrolysis. Since ATP hydrolysis is pretty widespread in nature (from bacteria to humans), it is likely that many of the genes involved are homologous right thoughtout life.

Ok, let me elaborate morphological similarities - ie why birds and crocodiles are morphologically very similar. The first feature is the presence of the antorbital fenestra (I have to add this feature is closed in advanced crocodiles, but you can see this in Jurassic and Cretaceous Crocs). The presence of an antorbital fenestra is a feature that all Archosaurs share. There is no evidence it appeared in any other group, so it's likely to assume that the Archosaurs form a natural group. Another feature which you can however see only in living forms is a four-chambered heart. The next important feature is the so-called mesotarsal joint between the calcaneum and the astragalus, which is only found in dinosaurs, birds, pterodactlys and a number of related archosaurs. The interesting point is that Crocodiles (and a significant number of other archosaurs) don't have it, they have a so-called crurotarsal joint instead. It is logical to assume that you have two branching lineages - one leading to birds one leading to crocodiles. Within the mesotarsal archosaurs, only dinosaurs and birds have a pierced acetabulum. Also, look at the legs of birds, they are very similar to theropod legs. So by having this combination of features, birds are dinosaurs. (Note: I have to admit there is ongoing discussion about the position of birds inside the group of dinosaurs, though).

This kind of reasoning amounts to 'they look similar, therefore they must have a common ancestor'. There is an underlying assumption that similarity always or nearly always equals common ancestry. I accept that that is an evolutionary assumption, and one is able to think along those lines in a perfectly reasonable manner. But you cannot use it to refute creationism. Rather, you have to look at the assumption on which that sort of thinking is based. I.e., can we really say that similarity points to common ancestry? This assumption must then be compared to the alternatives, e.g., perhaps similarity is based on function. We can't do an experiment that will prove or disprove either of these assumptions. Hence the battle continues to rage, as it is about the assumptions one uses to interpret the data. Finding facts that appear to be consistent with my assumption is not proof. It is possible that my assumption may even be wrong, and still fit some of the data better than any other assumption. That has happened before, I suspect.

Btw, another argument for this evolution to have taken place is that this is in chronological order (these events took place during the Triassic), and again from the Creationist side I don't see a point in God creating and making lifeforms extinct in chronological order. And morphologically, birds and mammals are much less similar (again, this coincides also with the chronological order within the fossil record). Regarding the cold-blooded and warm-blooded discussion, I think this is not an argument against evolution, rather it is one for evolution. The skeletal anatomy can help here to elaborate. The morphology of theropod dinosaurs hints at an agile lifestyle. Footprints hint that even larger predators could run with speeds up to 40km/h. No cold-blodded reptile physiology could achieve that, hence these Dinosaurs were almost certainly warmblooded. I have to admit it's unknown where warmbloodedness arose according to this, since things don't look that clear for other dinosaurs.

I also don't see the sense in suspecting that God would create and make lifeforms extinct in chronological order. From a geneticist point of view, though, expecting life to go from cold-blooded to warm blooded, using natural selection and what we currently understand about mutation rates, it's virtually an impossibility. I won't call it completely an impossibility, since I realize that this cannot be proven. But it looks unlikely. Expecting cold blooded animals to mutate into warm blooded animals twice is twice as unlikely (e.g. to explain both warm and cold blooded dinosaurs). From where I'm standing, it would be much easier to go back to the fossil forms and to ask the question 'could we have gotten our interpretations wrong here?' But then again, that's really not my area. I doubt if either you or I would be in a good position to say who should change their explanations.

Just out of curiositity, have you ever bothered to actually read the book of Genesis some time? It doesn't take a scientist to realize all that stuff cannot have happened and is totally inconsistent with our understanding of the universe. Read it closely, it reflects the knowledge of 2,500 years ago: virtually no understanding! I also find the Creationist view very sad because they wish to close their eyes from the wonders of the past which according to them never happened.Yes I have. Have you read my earlier posts. I have stated I am not A CREATIONIST. they are the ones who believe that the Bible is Literal. I do not make up the terms. I just uses them.

Wisjersey


001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.

So according to the bible, the sky is a solid hemisphere that is spanning across a flat disc, and above it there is water. Again, not consistent with our world - what about space?

Sheesh, how on earth did you get such a conclusion out of that piece of scripture? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that there was a canopy of water that surrounded the entire globe? It does seem a bit strange to be putting water in the sky, unless that is a reference to clouds, which would seem reasonable. Much of life does need some moisture in the air to survive.

There is no reference to a flat disc. It was a prevalent idea in somewhere along the Jewish history that the world was flat, and consisting of three heavens. But that isn't even hinted at here.

I don't see the inconsistency that you are pointing to.

Ok, that's it. We're left with a multiplicity of unanswered questions and strange anomalies we don't see in our world. Somehow i find this very inconsistent with reality, and it's much more plausible to assume the universe is some 14 billion years old, not just some 6000 years.

When your 'strange anomalies' consist of the example given above, then I am not convinced by your sense of 'plausibility'.

Wisjersey


001:006 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the
waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.

001:007 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were
under the firmament from the waters which were above the
firmament: and it was so.

So according to the bible, the sky is a solid hemisphere that is spanning across a flat disc, and above it there is water. Again, not consistent with our world - what about space?

Sheesh, how on earth did you get such a conclusion out of that piece of scripture? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that there was a canopy of water that surrounded the entire globe? It does seem a bit strange to be putting water in the sky, unless that is a reference to clouds, which would seem reasonable. Much of life does need some moisture in the air to survive.

There is no reference to a flat disc. It was a prevalent idea in somewhere along the Jewish history that the world was flat, and consisting of three heavens. But that isn't even hinted at here.

I don't see the inconsistency that you are pointing to.

Ok, that's it. We're left with a multiplicity of unanswered questions and strange anomalies we don't see in our world. Somehow i find this very inconsistent with reality, and it's much more plausible to assume the universe is some 14 billion years old, not just some 6000 years.

When your 'strange anomalies' consist of the example given above, then I am not convinced by your sense of 'plausibility'.

The important wording is 'firmament' - which we are taking from the Hebrew "Shamayim" - meaning (basically) 'the visible heavens' - but meaning SPECIFICALLY 'the sky as the abode of stars'...

Thus - according to Genesis - the waters 'above the firmament' are actually behind the stars... which certainly discludes the possibility of the 'waters' being clouds. (If you want to look into this more deeply, Genesis 1:14-18 clearly describe how God places the 'lights' in the 'firmament'... which we have been told 'divides' the two waters.

There are several references in the scripture to the Earth as a 'flat' world... not least being the idea of a mountain from which one can see the WHOLE world... which is impossible on a spherical world, no matter HOW high the peak. We also have references to the 'pillars' on which our world stands, and the 'corners' of the world, for example.

Thus - the Bible clearly describes a flat world with some water on it (initially, covered in water), with a layer of 'sky' above that (housing the sun, moon and stars), and followed in the uppermost level by the 'waters above'.

Arguing a literal interpretation of this part of scripture is a thankless task... Either you have to try to argue that the 'waters above' are actually in distant space, or you have to argue that the sky is a blanket that holds the stars and sun, and which literally has 'windows' which can be opened to allow water in.

The important wording is 'firmament' - which we are taking from the Hebrew "Shamayim" - meaning (basically) 'the visible heavens' - but meaning SPECIFICALLY 'the sky as the abode of stars'...

Thus - according to Genesis - the waters 'above the firmament' are actually behind the stars... which certainly discludes the possibility of the 'waters' being clouds. (If you want to look into this more deeply, Genesis 1:14-18 clearly describe how God places the 'lights' in the 'firmament'... which we have been told 'divides' the two waters.

There are several references in the scripture to the Earth as a 'flat' world... not least being the idea of a mountain from which one can see the WHOLE world... which is impossible on a spherical world, no matter HOW high the peak. We also have references to the 'pillars' on which our world stands, and the 'corners' of the world, for example.

Thus - the Bible clearly describes a flat world with some water on it (initially, covered in water), with a layer of 'sky' above that (housing the sun, moon and stars), and followed in the uppermost level by the 'waters above'.

Arguing a literal interpretation of this part of scripture is a thankless task... Either you have to try to argue that the 'waters above' are actually in distant space, or you have to argue that the sky is a blanket that holds the stars and sun, and which literally has 'windows' which can be opened to allow water in.


Your back! :fluffle: Have not seen u in forever!

Your back! :fluffle: Have not seen u in forever!

Yeah - unfortunately, an unpleasant disorder (medically known as 'Real Life') has been wreaking havoc on my schedule... :)

But, yay! Fluffles! :fluffle:

Yeah - unfortunately, an unpleasant disorder (medically known as 'Real Life') has been wreaking havoc on my schedule... :)

But, yay! Fluffles! :fluffle:
DAMN THAT REAL LIFE!!!11!!! DAMN IT ALL TO HELL!!!11!! :p

Grave_n_idle

Hello Grave

That's the difference between religion and science... science conforms it's 'story' to the observed facts, while religion attempts to conform the observed facts to it's 'story'.

I think that's a bit unfair. No one who has been a scientist for long would make such a lofty claim. With at least a grain of understanding, he would realize that 'facts' can be made to explain quite a variety of things. You only have to look at the fierce debating that goes on within the school of evolutionary thought. They can't all be right, but they can all be wrong.

As for the religion part, I suggest that you can find rather reasonable people within religion. I will admit that they are perhaps not well represented on this forum. Perhaps most of the religious people are either too cautious to engage in an experienced debater like yourself, or some of the others who are too abrasive, or are too ignorant of good reason to know that would make religion seem better if they keep quiet.
Personally, I try not to bend any of the facts to fit in with my religion. My success at this attempt will most likely depend on whether I can be honest and objective. Same goes for the evolutionists. Most of them on this forum don't seem to even try to be objective. Without that, there is no hope of ever learning the truth.


And, this is where the Creationists take one liberty too many with logic... since, obviously, things like the slow decay of the lunar orbit, and the fact that our Earth will eventually be consumed by our sun... are quite beyond the abilities of two hungry, naked dimwits in a metaphorical garden.

Decay is exacly what the creationists predict. It's what we have observed, and it fits in well with the story that begins with two naked people in a paradise.

Hmmm... I don't know... I have been 'a scientist' for a little over a decade, in one way or another, and (of course) studied science at school also.

Even the haziest of scientific theories should have their origins in observation - 'Dark Matter' being one example... and one of the more nebulous (possible pun...) examples, in my opinion.... but the point remains that the observation comes FIRST.

How was gravity cofidied? Did a theory materialise, and wait for evidence? Or was the modern theory suggested in response to observed phenomena?

And then, one only has to watch how scientific theory changes as new observations conflict with established understanding. Science really DOES conform to observation.

Does the disgareement between evolutionary camps discredit this? Not at all, quite the opposite, in fact - the conflict in theories is EVIDENCE of the fact that the 'story' follows the observation. If the scheme worked the other way, the disagreement wouldn't happen - because the answers would be 'known'.

And that, is why Creationism can never stand up to the rigours of scientific analysis. Because, if the evidence presented says there was no 'flood' - the EVIDENCE is discredited, until it matches the potential for the written testimony.

I appreciate that there ARE 'reasonable' people in any religion - Dempublicents is an example of a 'reasonable Christian' on this very forum - but those are the religious persons who accept that there can be conflicts between the theological and the just logical... and who do not try to enforce spirituality on the physical as well as the metaphysical.

Regarding the decay thing... you say that 'decay' agrees with the Creationist thinking, but you must realise that it is not unique to it.... observation has given science the concept of entropy, which describes the same mechanism (if you will), but without the hocus-pocus imagery. I'm not sure how you argue that Adamic sin explains why our moon will attempt to fall to Earth... it would seem that sin COULD affect people... it seems unlikely that planets and moons are much influenced by the relative morality of nakedness.

DAMN THAT REAL LIFE!!!11!!! DAMN IT ALL TO HELL!!!11!! :p

Yes, indeed... I haven't yet worked out a mechanism for getting someone to pay me for online debating... and I'm far too polite and honest to make any money at the blogging caper...

;)

Yes, indeed... I haven't yet worked out a mechanism for getting someone to pay me for online debating... and I'm far too polite and honest to make any money at the blogging caper...

;)
Do like me … get a job in network administration on a large and reliable network … I don’t have jack to do unless we are making changes (at least during the summer as there are not many students on campus)

It's not extinct, don't worry. As long as I live and breathe there will be at least one proponent of Creationism.

(It hasn't been that long, maybe a week)

Besides all the "evolutionary proof" in the world doens't negate creationism.
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know He had a little test tube, some pitri dishes, etc and pushed along the growth of the various species. Perhaps He made things evolve. I'll tell you when I find out.

I'm an atheist but that's what i say to zealots. changing earth, what's wrong twith the idea that god made things adaptable?

Do like me … get a job in network administration on a large and reliable network … I don’t have jack to do unless we are making changes (at least during the summer as there are not many students on campus)

Ah, I wish... in fact, didn't I try to steal your job once?

I'm an atheist but that's what i say to zealots. changing earth, what's wrong twith the idea that god made things adaptable?

To the rational mind, there is no conflict... although the 'evolutionists' might see a lack of evidence for the theological stuff.

Unfortunately, 'Creationism' is usually packaged as the LITERAL interpretation of the scriptural account.

I'm an atheist but that's what i say to zealots. changing earth, what's wrong twith the idea that god made things adaptable?

It stunts growth by suggesting that the answer to a question has already been found and no further questioning is possible.
Where would we be in this world if every question was simply answered with 'God did it.'?

Where would we be in this world if every question was simply answered with 'God did it.'?

In the Medieval Ages.

In the Medieval Ages.

"Ogg wonder where fire come from. Must be God."
-Ogg the caveman

Nope, no Medieval Ages there. :)

Yeah...how far do you understand the Universe? Just because the human race doesn't know about it doesn't mean it couldn't have existed.

'Black / White' fallacy. The fact that we don't know for sure that something is untrue doesn't automatically make it a reasonable theory.

I say all theories about the beginning of the world will forever stand - because we have no way of proving or disproving any of them. We should drop these meaningless ideas and focus on solving the world's real problems, like poverty and war.

Nonsense. We can still evaluate theories even when a clear answer isn't available through experimentation and the use of Occam's Razor. And to be honest, it's just plain arrogant to say that just because you can't personally see the point of an area of scientific study it should be shut down completely.

Grave_n_idle

The important wording is 'firmament' - which we are taking from the Hebrew "Shamayim" - meaning (basically) 'the visible heavens' - but meaning SPECIFICALLY 'the sky as the abode of stars'...

I did a quick Google on 'firmament and Hebrew' and went to the first entry and found this:
raqiya`
firmament
Gen 1:6, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:14, Gen 1:15, Gen 1:17, Gen 1:20, Psa 19:1, Psa 150:1, Eze 1:22, Eze 1:23, Eze 1:25, Eze 1:26, Eze 10:1, Dan 12:3 from 'raqa`' (7554); properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

This is from Strong's Hebrew Bible Dictionary
Not sure where you got your data from. But I don't see it pointing to 'specifically the sky as the abode of stars'

Thus - according to Genesis - the waters 'above the firmament' are actually behind the stars... which certainly discludes the possibility of the 'waters' being clouds. (If you want to look into this more deeply, Genesis 1:14-18 clearly describe how God places the 'lights' in the 'firmament'... which we have been told 'divides' the two waters.

And if firmament simply means 'that which you can see when you look up to the sky', then your explanation doesn't fit.

There are several references in the scripture to the Earth as a 'flat' world... not least being the idea of a mountain from which one can see the WHOLE world... which is impossible on a spherical world, no matter HOW high the peak. We also have references to the 'pillars' on which our world stands, and the 'corners' of the world, for example.

The Bible describes Jesus and Satan going up to a high mountain place and looking at all the kingdoms of the world. Firstly, we don't know if it was in a vision that this took place. Secondly, to be able to see all of the 'known' world of that day would require some special sort of ability, for even were the world flat, you can't see a city at more than 100km or thereabouts on the clearest of days (based on my own experience, but then my eyes aren't the best). Thus, if they were using some special powers to see over the great distance, then it is also possible for them to see 'right round the globe' This is not a reference to the world being thought of as flat, at least not necessarily.

However, even if the writers did think of the world being flat, that doesn't mean that they wrote untruth. They wrote what they understood. Not knowing about genes, radiation, electricity, etc., does not invalidate their account necessarily.

Furthermore, my original point was that a reading of the first chapter of Genesis does not lead to the conclusion of a flat earth view (as Wisjersey seemed to be saying), but that it comes perhaps from reading the works of the later writers.

The corners of the earth, as I understand it, is term widely used in literature, even today, and does not necessarily mean that the writers thought that there were really any corners. Next you will be saying that the writers thought that the trees could 'clap their hands'.

Thus - the Bible clearly describes a flat world with some water on it (initially, covered in water), with a layer of 'sky' above that (housing the sun, moon and stars), and followed in the uppermost level by the 'waters above'.

And where might I find this clear description?

Arguing a literal interpretation of this part of scripture is a thankless task... Either you have to try to argue that the 'waters above' are actually in distant space, or you have to argue that the sky is a blanket that holds the stars and sun, and which literally has 'windows' which can be opened to allow water in.

None of these points are necessary, depending on which definition of 'firmament' you use.

Grave_n_idle

Hmmm... I don't know... I have been 'a scientist' for a little over a decade, in one way or another, and (of course) studied science at school also.

I didn't realize you are a scientist. What is your area of study?

Even the haziest of scientific theories should have their origins in observation - 'Dark Matter' being one example... and one of the more nebulous (possible pun...) examples, in my opinion.... but the point remains that the observation comes FIRST.

The observation certainly comes first. My point was that after the initial observation comes the explanation. Often, the explanation invokes some cause that has never been observed. The case in hand is Dark Matter or anti-matter. We have seen some 'black patches' in space. that is the observation. The explanation, though is not based on anyone having detected anti-matter. Thus my point. In science, we are not restricting ourselves to using explanations that are based on fact. In the genetic world, to use another example, people have come up with the theory that evolution involved a series of rapid jumps in the rate of mutation, to explain how, e.g. a deer-like animal could grow a long neck and the blood pressure control mechanisms that would supply enough blood to the head when the animal is stretching up high enough to eat the leaves, without blowing the head off with the pressure every time it went down to drink (I'm describing a giraffe). In order for such an animal to come about through natural selection, the mutations had to fly thick and fast, much faster than the mutation rate that we observe today. Thus, they theorize that the mutation rate must have been faster back then. The observation came first. Then the explanation that supports evolutionary theory. But is there any observation to support the explanation? Not as far as I have read. Thus the scientist has taken a fact, and attempted to explain it based on his world view. Nothing wrong with that, in my view. That is science. Creationism attempts to do the same. Saying creationism isn't science based on that point would not be fair of you.

Does the disgareement between evolutionary camps discredit this? Not at all, quite the opposite, in fact - the conflict in theories is EVIDENCE of the fact that the 'story' follows the observation. If the scheme worked the other way, the disagreement wouldn't happen - because the answers would be 'known'.

My point was simply that observation does not always lead to an obvious conclusion, and that it can be interpreted several ways. The disagreement within the halls of evolutionary thought is evidence for this.

And that, is why Creationism can never stand up to the rigours of scientific analysis. Because, if the evidence presented says there was no 'flood' - the EVIDENCE is discredited, until it matches the potential for the written testimony.

It's a misunderstanding when people think that science has proven that there was no Great Flood. The evidence has been interpreted in another way. Since the vast majority of scientists don't accept the possibility of miracles, it is not surprising that the vast majority of explanations make the flood seem unlikely. The original data doesn't 'say' anything. It's the interpretation that counts. Proof, in this case, is out of reach of science.

If you allow that miracles are possible, then accepting the flood is possible, though there are many questions that are yet to be asked. Does the acceptance of miracles mean bad science? Not necessarily, IMO, although I have seen it happen. But there has been bad science on the side of evolution as well, where people have let go of their integrity in an attempt to 'prove' evolution.

I appreciate that there ARE 'reasonable' people in any religion - Dempublicents is an example of a 'reasonable Christian' on this very forum - but those are the religious persons who accept that there can be conflicts between the theological and the just logical... and who do not try to enforce spirituality on the physical as well as the metaphysical.

Are you suggesting that I am trying to 'enforce spirituality on the physical as well as the metaphysical'?

Regarding the decay thing... you say that 'decay' agrees with the Creationist thinking, but you must realise that it is not unique to it.... observation has given science the concept of entropy, which describes the same mechanism (if you will), but without the hocus-pocus imagery. I'm not sure how you argue that Adamic sin explains why our moon will attempt to fall to Earth... it would seem that sin COULD affect people... it seems unlikely that planets and moons are much influenced by the relative morality of nakedness.

It never entered my head to assume that Creationist thinking is the only way of thinking that takes decay into account. I wouldn't think of insulting the intelligence of many of my colleagues.

....relative morality of nakedness--I missed what you were hinting at there. As for Adamic sin explaining chaos, a reading of the scriptures gives you the story. When man, the most responsible lifeform in all of God's creation, sinned, it caused a schism between God and His creation. The schism has apparently altered some things. We don't know what the world was like before the schism, so we can't say what the alteration is, even if we understood the mathematics of all the laws of nature that operate now. Thus, I can't explain what happened.

Bruarong

<snip>

And if firmament simply means 'that which you can see when you look up to the sky', then your explanation doesn't fit.

If your definition is correct then God put the waters "above" 'that which you can see when you look up to the sky'. Your argument that these waters could be clouds or some other atmospheric moisture doesnt seem plausible if the waters are said to be above the visible sky... It would make much more sense that the people who wrote this part of the bible really did see the sky as a solid dome. Thus making it possible to actually fit waters above it...

The Bible describes Jesus and Satan going up to a high mountain place and looking at all the kingdoms of the world. Firstly, we don't know if it was in a vision that this took place. Secondly, to be able to see all of the 'known' world of that day would require some special sort of ability, for even were the world flat, you can't see a city at more than 100km or thereabouts on the clearest of days (based on my own experience, but then my eyes aren't the best). Thus, if they were using some special powers to see over the great distance, then it is also possible for them to see 'right round the globe' This is not a reference to the world being thought of as flat, at least not necessarily.

If they had this special ability to warp the behaviour of light so they could see around the world, or if they simply magically looked wherever on the face of the globe they needed to, why then bother going all the way up a mountain... If they can bend light in that manner they dont need to worry about things getting in their line of sight. This 'special ability' you speak of (that doesnt seem to get a biblical mention) would negate the need for such a convoluted approach. Or maybe Satan just took Jesus up the mountain as a theatrical device. Make it all a bit more dramatic. If it is possible that is 'just a vision' then isnt that proving that the bible is wide open to interpretation on what is literal and what is not? If that story is just a vision then why can't the story of genesis been a vision or dream?

However, even if the writers did think of the world being flat, that doesn't mean that they wrote untruth. They wrote what they understood. Not knowing about genes, radiation, electricity, etc., does not invalidate their account necessarily.

If the writers did think the world was flat then they didnt INTENTIONALLY write untruth. We could forgive them for their ignorance since they lived in ancient times. However, if you are claiming that they were writing under divine inspiration then such an error would be very ungodly.

The corners of the earth, as I understand it, is term widely used in literature, even today, and does not necessarily mean that the writers thought that there were really any corners. Next you will be saying that the writers thought that the trees could 'clap their hands'.

People also say "God bless you" when someone sneezes. We know now that your soul isnt really trying to escape your body. But once upon a time people did. Just the same that now "the corners of the earth" or "the ends of the earth" are literary devices. However, it is entirely possible that, when first coined, these phrases were intended quite literally.

Anyway just my 2c for the day.

If you allow that miracles are possible, then accepting the flood is possible, though there are many questions that are yet to be asked. Does the acceptance of miracles mean bad science?

Yes. If miracles are possible, can you demonstrate with any degree of certainty that the US didn't have 120 states one second ago? God could have destroyed them and blanked your memory, after all.

Science does not appeal to the divine, because it implies the world is fundamentally unpredictable. Since we see predictable mechanisms in the world and have no reason to believe an outside force is manipulating them, science will not accept the existence of miracles until hard proof of something with no other acceptable explaination whatsoever is presented.

The Children of Beer

If your definition is correct then God put the waters "above" 'that which you can see when you look up to the sky'. Your argument that these waters could be clouds or some other atmospheric moisture doesnt seem plausible if the waters are said to be above the visible sky... It would make much more sense that the people who wrote this part of the bible really did see the sky as a solid dome. Thus making it possible to actually fit waters above it...

Good point. However, the New International Version resolves this problem with this:

6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky."

I suppose that is the closest we can get to what the writer originally meant.

If they had this special ability to warp the behaviour of light so they could see around the world, or if they simply magically looked wherever on the face of the globe they needed to, why then bother going all the way up a mountain... If they can bend light in that manner they dont need to worry about things getting in their line of sight. This 'special ability' you speak of (that doesnt seem to get a biblical mention) would negate the need for such a convoluted approach. Or maybe Satan just took Jesus up the mountain as a theatrical device. Make it all a bit more dramatic. If it is possible that is 'just a vision' then isnt that proving that the bible is wide open to interpretation on what is literal and what is not? If that story is just a vision then why can't the story of genesis been a vision or dream?

Another good point. If it were a vision or based on some special ability, they could have been sitting in a lounge chair somewhere instead of on top of a high mountain. I'm not so much of a Bible scholar that I could tell you the whys and hows of this part of the Bible. But since Jesus was talking with Satan (being a mythical figure according to most of modern thought), it was likely to be an extra-ordinary event. Thus I see no reason why the view of all the kingdoms of the world was not also extra-ordinary. Of course, this could also mean that the genesis story was a vision or a dream. (Where do we draw the line with the 'extra-ordinary-ness'?) I don't accept the Genesis account based only on the fact that it was written in a book. (On that basis I would accept anything written, and end up terribly confused.) I have to look at the world that I live in, make my observations, and ask, 'can what I see here fit in with what I have read in the Bible?' Currently, I have many unanswered questions, but nothing that has shown me that what the Bible says is false.

If the writers did think the world was flat then they didnt INTENTIONALLY write untruth. We could forgive them for their ignorance since they lived in ancient times. However, if you are claiming that they were writing under divine inspiration then such an error would be very ungodly.

Not necessarily. When God inspires people to write, I imagine the inspired writings to be limited to the abilities and understandings of the writer. We know that the accounts of the Gospels are hardly litetary masterpieces. Its not smooth continuous accounts that we have, but of bits and pieces of the life of Jesus. Your expection would mean that any piece of writing that God inspired would be a masterpiece. But we see that this is not necessarily so. Another example is what Jewish culture thought of women, lepers, and foreigners--i.e. as lesser people than the Jewish men. It may have been that the writers of the Bible also thought this. We know today that that is morally incorrect. Does God sit them down and set them right before inspiring them e.g. David to write the Psalms?

People also say "God bless you" when someone sneezes. We know now that your soul isnt really trying to escape your body. But once upon a time people did. Just the same that now "the corners of the earth" or "the ends of the earth" are literary devices. However, it is entirely possible that, when first coined, these phrases were intended quite literally.

Agreed. Possible, but not necessarily so.

Sheesh, how on earth did you get such a conclusion out of that piece of scripture?

Well, that's easy. I have been taking things literally.

Wouldn't it be more reasonable to think that there was a canopy of water that surrounded the entire globe? It does seem a bit strange to be putting water in the sky, unless that is a reference to clouds, which would seem reasonable. Much of life does need some moisture in the air to survive.

Well, you're not taking things literal then anymore. Besides, you still haven't bothered to think about that this is totally inconsistent with our world as we see it today, and the informations we can get about the past from our observation (i'm not just talking about geology and fossil record here, but also astronomy - there's the speed of light ya know).

Yes. If miracles are possible, can you demonstrate with any degree of certainty that the US didn't have 120 states one second ago? God could have destroyed them and blanked your memory, after all.



My old debating partner.

I accept miracles are possible. I also accept that there is much in the world that cannot be explained at this stage. Perhaps never. Does that make me a bad candidate for research into science?

My personal feeling about this is that when I encounter something new, I first look for an explanation based on the natural laws. If nothing fits, then I DONT just say that it must have been a miracle. However, I realize that is what many people accuse creationists of doing. I think that is not fair. The right response in such a situation, IMO, is to simply say, I don't know. It's OK to use your imagination and creativity to think of an explanation, but at the end of the day, it is better to admit ignorance than to claim a miracle. I accept a miracle if the Bible writers claim there was one. But that is because I have studied the Bible long enough to know that the message in it is true and does not contain mistakes that lead to falsehood (though there are many parts that have been misinterpreted, no doubt).

Science does not appeal to the divine, because it implies the world is fundamentally unpredictable. Since we see predictable mechanisms in the world and have no reason to believe an outside force is manipulating them, science will not accept the existence of miracles until hard proof of something with no other acceptable explaination whatsoever is presented.

I agree with this. The science world has no way of dealing with the miraculous. But neither can it deal with something as basic as unconditional unselfish love. I think the mathematics would be too complicated!!

It's a misunderstanding when people think that science has proven that there was no Great Flood. The evidence has been interpreted in another way. Since the vast majority of scientists don't accept the possibility of miracles, it is not surprising that the vast majority of explanations make the flood seem unlikely. The original data doesn't 'say' anything. It's the interpretation that counts. Proof, in this case, is out of reach of science.

To your information, it IS proven that there was no Deluge. And the evidence cannot be interpreted in any other way unless you discard the bulk of information. I've been mentioning radiolarite, other microfossils, in-situ-grown reefs, disctinction between terrestrial and marine facies, etc. - it is standard procedure by Creationists to IGNORE all that, not to interprete it differently.

If you allow that miracles are possible, then accepting the flood is possible, though there are many questions that are yet to be asked.

Well, it would require a while lot more miracles than you think to explain all the inconsistencies it would cause.

Does the acceptance of miracles mean bad science? Not necessarily, IMO, although I have seen it happen. But there has been bad science on the side of evolution as well, where people have let go of their integrity in an attempt to 'prove' evolution.

Well, IMHO the whole of science becomes in vain if we accept miracles as a possible explanation. Where is the purpose of science if we say "god did it?" I mean, we can explain how so much in the universe works, and you just want to say "No this must not be the case because I believe God did it."

Well, IMHO the whole of science becomes in vain if we accept miracles as a possible explanation. Where is the purpose of science if we say "god did it?" I mean, we can explain how so much in the universe works, and you just want to say "No this must not be the case because I believe God did it."

You're taking this to an extreme. Science and God do not have to conflict. Science is solid and does exist. But where inadequate, inefficient and incomplete science ends is where God truly begins.

Btw, for the sake of fairness (and to prove I am **not biased**) i'm going to post something here that might actually fuel you, Bruarong.

In the Early Cretaceous of Australia (you will perhaps recall the large marine reptiles from the Eromanga sea, and various dinosaurs), fossils have been discovered of dicynodonts and stegocephalians. Now you have to know that these animals were previously thought to be extinct since the end of the Triassic. How does it come that they appear some 90 million years later?
Today you have a number of 'living fossils' which are otherwise only known from fossil record, think about the coelacanth, the nautilus and the tuatara. It's more likely that the mentioned animals in Australia were 'living fossils' in their time, and that they survived only there while becoming extinct everywhere else in the world.
Ok, now I imagine Creationists will regard this as a proof stratigraphic order is non-existent. However, there is no evidence for that...

Wisjersey

Well, that's easy. I have been taking things literally.

Then our versions of 'literal' are somewhat different. Maybe you could explain to me your process of literal interpretation in a step by step process.

Well, you're not taking things literal then anymore. Besides, you still haven't bothered to think about that this is totally inconsistent with our world as we see it today, and the informations we can get about the past from our observation (i'm not just talking about geology and fossil record here, but also astronomy - there's the speed of light ya know)

My process of being literal is not terribly strict. When I read what is written, I try to imagine what the writer had in mind, his sources of information, his surroundings, his education, culture, etc. Perhaps he was sitting on a hillside somewhere, looking up into the sky, recalling to himself what he had heard from the old men in his tribe and from what he had learned from God, and wrote something like......
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." (NIV)

The chaps who wrote the NIV seemed to have put it just the way I thought of it, rather than putting the water out beyond the stars. From a science point of view, clouds are water, so it seems to fit.

Perhaps the most important point, however, is that since you or I were not there, and we perhaps find it hard to imagine what a world would look like, one that God would describe as good (I doubt he would make the world as it is today and call it good--red in tooth and claw), then we should be a bit cautious in ridiculing it and calling it impossible. How on earth could we know what is possible back then? Especially if we allow that there may be a God after all.

Back to the light issue again, I see. To be honest, I have talked over this issue enough to know that I don't know enough about it to discuss in much depth. Has the speed of light changed with time. I DONT KNOW! I do know that I don't go along with your phrase 'totally inconsistent with'. You have to remember how limited our little experiments are.

You're taking this to an extreme. Science and God do not have to conflict. Science is solid and does exist. But where inadequate, inefficient and incomplete science ends is where God truly begins.

Well, as you say it, science is solid and does exist. So is evolution, but you will deny it. Palaeontologists are gathering tons of informations about biology and ecology of extinct lifeforms (which fit very well into the overall picture - and Creationists just ignore it), and we basically have to discard it all because you call it 'inadequate'?

Btw, for the sake of fairness (and to prove I am **not biased**) i'm going to post something here that might actually fuel you, Bruarong.

In the Early Cretaceous of Australia (you will perhaps recall the large marine reptiles from the Eromanga sea, and various dinosaurs), fossils have been discovered of dicynodonts and stegocephalians. Now you have to know that these animals were previously thought to be extinct since the end of the Triassic. How does it come that they appear some 90 million years later?
Today you have a number of 'living fossils' which are otherwise only known from fossil record, think about the coelacanth, the nautilus and the tuatara. It's more likely that the mentioned animals in Australia were 'living fossils' in their time, and that they survived only there while becoming extinct everywhere else in the world.
Ok, now I imagine Creationists will regard this as a proof stratigraphic order is non-existent. However, there is no evidence for that...

I was aware that there are 'living fossils', but my general lack of knowledge in that area is a good indication that it is a no-go zone for me, though I am happy to read your posts on it. I mean no offense to you, but I have discovered a few of your errors (like the one where fossils of animals with their heads pulled back means they died slowly of thirst) which is likely to make me read with caution.

Well, as you say it, science is solid and does exist. So is evolution, but you will deny it. Palaeontologists are gathering tons of informations about biology and ecology of extinct lifeforms (which fit very well into the overall picture - and Creationists just ignore it), and we basically have to discard it all because you call it 'inadequate'?
Not discard. But question. Science progresses through questioning previous assumptions (see Kuhn's paradigm shift and Popper's falsification theory). You can't prove evolution, because nobody's seen it, or documented it. Nobody's seen or proven a single cell to turn into a dual cell. Nobody's seen an ape turn into a human. All evidence needs to be questioned. Right now, there are far too many doubts about evolutionism to be accepted as concrete truth. So there is about creationism, so at this stage nothing is scientific truth, but personal belief based on different factors.

Back to the light issue again, I see. To be honest, I have talked over this issue enough to know that I don't know enough about it to discuss in much depth. Has the speed of light changed with time. I DONT KNOW! I do know that I don't go along with your phrase 'totally inconsistent with'. You have to remember how limited our little experiments are.

Speed of light, isn't it obvious? The speed of light in vacuum is constant. If the world was only 6,000 years old, we could only see to 6,000 light years away. We can however see ***much farther*** than that. So observation is totally incosistent (and yes, i love that phrase ;)) with what would be expected from taking bible literally (ie - young earth). Hence the universe must be much older than 6,000 years.

To your information, it IS proven that there was no Deluge. And the evidence cannot be interpreted in any other way unless you discard the bulk of information. I've been mentioning radiolarite, other microfossils, in-situ-grown reefs, disctinction between terrestrial and marine facies, etc. - it is standard procedure by Creationists to IGNORE all that, not to interprete it differently.

Well, it would require a while lot more miracles than you think to explain all the inconsistencies it would cause.

Well, IMHO the whole of science becomes in vain if we accept miracles as a possible explanation. Where is the purpose of science if we say "god did it?" I mean, we can explain how so much in the universe works, and you just want to say "No this must not be the case because I believe God did it."

I'm not suggesting discard the evidence/information, or ignore it. But hold the explanations lightly. Who knows, you may have to upgrade them one day. Remember, currently there are some theories that the evolutionary geneticists use that also require 'miracles', which is unfortunate for them, since they don't accept miracles.

My existence as a scientist who accepts miracles are possible is then made vain? The purpose of science is to explore our world. God is happy for us to do this. I don't believe something simply because it was written. But like any careful scientist, I do the research. If I am more careful about accepting evolutionary explanations than you are, should you consider me vain?

Not discard. But question. Science progresses through questioning previous assumptions (see Kuhn's paradigm shift and Popper's falsification theory). You can't prove evolution, because nobody's seen it, or documented it. Nobody's seen or proven a single cell to turn into a dual cell. Nobody's seen an ape turn into a human. All evidence needs to be questioned. Right now, there are far too many doubts about evolutionism to be accepted as concrete truth. So there is about creationism, so at this stage nothing is scientific truth, but personal belief based on different factors.

Just because something happened before your time (btw, evoolution has been observed), that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Let me give you an example:

For example, take the assumption Rome never existed. The ruins were from much later (maybe medieval ages), and any evidence about it in history was faked as well. Can you prove it? ;)

Speed of light, isn't it obvious? The speed of light in vacuum is constant. If the world was only 6,000 years old, we could only see to 6,000 light years away. We can however see ***much farther*** than that. So observation is totally incosistent (and yes, i love that phrase ;)) with what would be expected from taking bible literally (ie - young earth). Hence the universe must be much older than 6,000 years.

Yes, one would think that is obvious, at least on the face of it. If, however, we did an experiment that showed that under some conditions the speed of light in a vacuum DID change, then your explanation and your phrase 'totally inconsistent with' comes under question.

Just because something happened before your time (btw, evoolution has been observed), that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Let me give you an example:

For example, take the assumption Rome never existed. The ruins were from much later (maybe medieval ages), and any evidence about it in history was faked as well. Can you prove it? ;)

Sir, I think you are mistaken. Evolution being observed????? Where, pray tell?

Just because something happened before your time (btw, evoolution has been observed), that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Let me give you an example:

For example, take the assumption Rome never existed. The ruins were from much later (maybe medieval ages), and any evidence about it in history was faked as well. Can you prove it? ;)

Yeah...just because you can't prove something doesn't mean that something doesn't exist (say, God?)

I don't get your example....sorry....*blushes*

Just because something happened before your time (btw, evoolution has been observed), that doesn't mean it didn't exist. Let me give you an example:

For example, take the assumption Rome never existed. The ruins were from much later (maybe medieval ages), and any evidence about it in history was faked as well. Can you prove it? ;)

Could the same piece of logic be applied to creation?

Could the same piece of logic be applied to creation?

YES!

I'm not suggesting discard the evidence/information, or ignore it. But hold the explanations lightly. Who knows, you may have to upgrade them one day. Remember, currently there are some theories that the evolutionary geneticists use that also require 'miracles', which is unfortunate for them, since they don't accept miracles.

If you regard the switch from cold-bloodedness to wambloodedness as a miracle, then it's your perception. From my point of view it's no miracle at all, it makes perfect sense. You have to realize what coldblooded and warmblooded actually means. Warmblooded means that a lifeform is capable of regulating it's body temperature so that it is on a constant level while in coldblooded lifeforms it is related to the temperature of the surrounding. It is folly to assume that there are no possible intermediate steps between no regulation and complete regulation.

My existence as a scientist who accepts miracles are possible is then made vain? The purpose of science is to explore our world. God is happy for us to do this. I don't believe something simply because it was written. But like any careful scientist, I do the research. If I am more careful about accepting evolutionary explanations than you are, should you consider me vain?

Well, have you observed miracles? I don't think so. Our world is void of miracles. Unless you call chance a miracle. And I don't think I'm careless, just because I'm capable of understanding 'the big picture'?

Could the same piece of logic be applied to creation?

My point is that you have to take the available evidence and make the most consistent picture out of it. That means, scientific method. Occam's Razor. And not pseudoscientific nonsense.

IE: It's more likely to assume Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and all the prehistory happened, and not thousands of (not very parsimonious) miracles happening in the context of a Creation and Deluge scenario.

Wisjersey

My point is that you have to take the available evidence and make the most consistent picture out of it. That means, scientific method. Occam's Razor. And not pseudoscientific nonsense. IE: It's more likely to assume Earth is 4.6 billion years old, and all the prehistory happened, and not thousands of (not very parsimonious) miracles happening in the context of a Creation and Deluge scenario

Occam's Razor is about choosing the explanation that is simplest. But that choice is subjective, because a Christian may feel that including God in his explanation is more simple than depending on "one in a billion" sort of odds, while an atheist might feel that including God is more complicated. Occam's Razor won't help either of us in this case, except tell us how biased we both are.

If you regard the switch from cold-bloodedness to wambloodedness as a miracle, then it's your perception. From my point of view it's no miracle at all, it makes perfect sense. You have to realize what coldblooded and warmblooded actually means. Warmblooded means that a lifeform is capable of regulating it's body temperature so that it is on a constant level while in coldblooded lifeforms it is related to the temperature of the surrounding. It is folly to assume that there are no possible intermediate steps between no regulation and complete regulation.

Actually, most geneticists would also consider it something of a marvel (I'll avoid using the word miracle here, since it has a double meaning.) It's not just my perception. I once remember, when I was a third year student, and our professor was with us in the teaching labs, and was giving us a mini-lecture about evolutionary theory. I plucked up my courage and pointed out how unlikely it was for several or many mutations to happen all at once and give rise to some trait that was advantagous, e.g., like a nervous system. The professor thought for moment, and then left me with the words, "We can never rule out the effects of time." Somehow, I have never forgotten those words. Perhaps because I have yet to hear a better answer. That doesn't meant that I think it an adequate answer. Quite the opposite. Just throwing time at a problem won't make it go away. In fact, it is even likely to make it worse, given that we now know that all things tend toward randomness (eventually at least). A nervous system requires precision. The moment something goes wrong with it, it ceases to function properly. And so are we to expect that a series of random event could give rise to even the simplest form of a nervous system? Occams Razor tells me something different from what it obviously tells you, in this case.

Well, have you observed miracles? I don't think so. Our world is void of miracles. Unless you call chance a miracle. And I don't think I'm careless, just because I'm capable of understanding 'the big picture'?

Wait a moment. You declare that our world is void of miracles. Because science has never documented one? Because you have never witnessed one? Perhaps we should be careful about what we agree on as a good definition of a miracle. My whole experience as a Christian is seems somewhat of a miracle to me. I can't document it. It's outside of science. I certainly can't do an experiment that would prove it to you. But I believe it has happened. I carry the proof around in my head at any given moment. My whole life is changed. I get out of bed now every morning for a totally different reason. I can't share the proof with you, because you would only accept it in a form that science can deal with. Doesn't work. I can't convince you. I didn't believe it possible either until it happened. And yet I have met hundreds of people with a similar experience. Wisjersey, in this case you are speaking about something that you do not know, as if you are an authority on miracles. I think you have been careless.

Wisjersey

Occam's Razor is about choosing the explanation that is simplest. But that choice is subjective, because a Christian may feel that including God in his explanation is more simple than depending on "one in a billion" sort of odds, while an atheist might feel that including God is more complicated. Occam's Razor won't help either of us in this case, except tell us how biased we both are.

No, Occam's Razor is about chosing the theory that makes the least unsubstantiated assumptions. But then again, Occam's Razor only applies when both theories make equally useful predictions and have equal evidence, it's a last resort type thing. Since creationism makes absolutely zero useful predictions and has no evidence, Occam's Razor doesn't come into play.

EDIT: In fact, your whole post is ridiculous. You just had to throw in the standard creationist wet dream of throwing a deceptivily simple question at a college professor and he can't answer it to make it even less believable.

Seriously, I haven't seen any science whatsoever out of you through this entire topic. I see things placed in laymen's terms, but you're even often wrong there. You haven't given any actual value to 90% of the terms you've used and have cited one or two experiments that you have either mis-interpreted or deliberately counted on your opposition not picking up on the bull shit.

The evolutionists may have an explanation for this, but I haven't heard one yet (which is why I am posing it here).

According to evolutionists, the continents of South America and Africa separated 225 million years ago. (see, U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html ). By 65 million years ago, the continents of Africa and South America were thousands of miles apart. The first, and by far most primitive, primates did not appear until 60 million years ago. Modern monkeys started showing up 25-30 million years ago. Yet, there are genetically compatible (meaning, they can inter-breed) monkeys native to both the African and South American continent.

The question is, how did monkeys get to both continents?

I'm not sure if I'm more impressed with their swimming abilities, or their monkey-boats.

Any thoughts?

If you regard the switch from cold-bloodedness to wambloodedness as a miracle, then it's your perception. From my point of view it's no miracle at all, it makes perfect sense. You have to realize what coldblooded and warmblooded actually means. Warmblooded means that a lifeform is capable of regulating it's body temperature so that it is on a constant level while in coldblooded lifeforms it is related to the temperature of the surrounding. It is folly to assume that there are no possible intermediate steps between no regulation and complete regulation.



Well, have you observed miracles? I don't think so. Our world is void of miracles. Unless you call chance a miracle. And I don't think I'm careless, just because I'm capable of understanding 'the big picture'?

As a matter of fact, I've seen miracles. I define miracles as supernatural events whose occurance is impossible under the laws of physics and nature.

So assumptive, this one is!

Like what? Give examples. Cite times.

As a matter of fact, I've seen miracles. I define miracles as supernatural events whose occurance is impossible under the laws of physics and nature.

How do you know what the laws of physics a nature are? Even those who have studied these things for years aren't as sure of them as you apparently are. Are you omnsicient?

So assumptive, this one is!

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]How do you know what the laws of physics a nature are? Even those who have studied these things for years aren't as sure of them as you apparently are. Are you omnsicient?[ QUOTE]

the best rebuttal to this line of arguement I have ever seen can be found here


http://www.csicop.org/si/2005-03/evolution.html

from the article "One Longsome Arguement" The Skeptical Enquirer

"One popular approach enlisted by creation "scientists" is the classic all-or-nothing argument wherein proponents claim that nothing in science can be known with confidence until every last detail is described with absolute certainty. Appealing largely to those unschooled in the scientific method, critics point to such nonissues as gaps in the fossil record, poorly understood aspects of gene function, and the mystery of life's origins as reasons to view evolutionary theory as speculative or provisional. What they fail to appreciate is that scientific theories are built solely upon evidence that is actually available for study and so cannot be refuted by speculation regarding those clues that remain hidden. As long as a theory remains consistent with observed phenomena and yields valid predictions, it must be considered a viable explanation regardless of what remains to be discovered. Thus, it is entirely irrelevant that gaps in the fossil record exist, but vitally important that those fossils that do exist make sense in the context of evolution. A single hominid fossil found among the trilobites of the Burgess Shale, for instance, would immediately throw Darwin's theory into doubt. Likewise, the fact that certain aspects of molecular genetics remain to be fully described in no way negates the fact that the substantial amount that is known about gene function is entirely consistent with evolution as we understand it today.

Yet despite the proverbial admonition against doing so, many still view the absence of evidence as evidence of absence and remain all too eager to fill this fictional void with the narrative of their choosing. Indeed, this particular brand of argumentum ad ignorantiam has long been a mainstay for creationists looking to wedge their cosmology between the narrowing gaps of scientific knowledge (an increasingly difficult task). But issues of legitimacy aside, because this fallacy has sired so many specious claims over the years it seems only fitting that the mother of all such "arguments to ignorance" should stem from the granddaddy of all biological data gaps: the evolution of single-celled life forms.

Because no physical body of evidence exists to document the beginning of life on Earth, this information gap has proven to be a wildly popular (albeit wholly inappropriate) foil for those seeking to discredit evolutionary theory. In truth, the origin of life is an issue entirely separate from the origin of species, rendering this otherwise important question utterly irrelevant as far as the veracity of natural selection is concerned. Whether the first primitive life form arose from known physical processes or was somehow willed into being through means beyond our understanding, evidence that all life on Earth descended from simple primordial beings remains just as compelling, and the myth of independent creation just as untenable.

But even this slender refuge for creationist sentiment has now begun to evaporate under the light of modern scientific scrutiny, for although Earth's original life forms left no physical evidence for scientists to examine, credible hypotheses regarding the spontaneous formation and assembly of self-replicating molecules have been proposed and tested nonetheless. Laboratory experiments and astronomic observations suggest that key organic compounds were present in abundance shortly following Earth's formation and that natural chemical affinities and mineral scaffolds may have acted in concert to produce the simplest of biochemical copying machines. In 1953, Stanley Miller became the first to demonstrate that amino acids and other organic molecules could have formed through chemical means in prebiotic oceans capped with an atmosphere of ammonia, methane, and hydrogen gas. Although geochemists now question Miller's assumptions regarding the reducing power of the prebiotic atmosphere (Bada 2003), reducing environments may well have existed in isolated pockets on the embryotic Earth (near volcanic vents for instance). Moreover, many of these same organic compounds have been found to exist among interstellar dust clouds and meteorites, suggesting that life's building blocks may have been delivered to Earth on the backs of icy comets and carbonaceous asteroids.

Based on these and other findings, biochemists have proposed several plausible mechanisms by which these compounds may have coalesced of their own accord into the precursors of life. Experiments confirm that layered mineral deposits can attract, concentrate, and link organic molecules and that certain clays may function as scaffolding for assembling the molecular components of RNA (Hazen 2001). Crystalline templates have also been proposed as possible means of primitive protein assembly, their mirror-image surface structure accounting for the curious predominance of "left-handed" amino acids found in all creatures living today. These and other minerals have also been shown to facilitate the sequence of chemical transformations needed to spark life, acting as sheltered containers (feldspar), catalysts (magnetite), and iron sulfide reactants (pyrite). What's more, a complex mixture of organic compounds formed within simulated interstellar ices has recently been observed to spontaneously form cell-like vessels when immersed in water (Dworkin 2001), providing yet another viable mechanism by which particles awash in a dilute prebiotic soup might have assembled themselves into crude cells.

Although the precise sequence of events will never be known with absolute certainty, these and similar experiments strongly suggest that the earliest terrestrial life forms arose spontaneously and in accordance with the known laws of nature. In short, everything we have come to understand about our world suggests that living creatures are a natural consequence of the laws that govern the physical universe-no more anomalous than the matter they comprise or the space they occupy. Yet despite all efforts to disseminate this hard-earned knowledge, a broad swath of creationist sentiment lingers on, fueled by well-worn arguments ranging from the philosophical and dogmatic to the confused and plain disingenuous. The great majority of these objections, however, quickly collapse under even the most cursory examination.

Many of the "scientific" arguments for intelligent design, for instance, invoke common misconceptions about how the physical world really works, as in the classic "watchmaker" argument wherein nature is assumed to act randomly and possess no organizational tendencies. Given this false premise, it is a simple matter to show that complex molecular structures could never have formed by chance alone any more than a factory whirlwind could assemble a Mercedes Benz from its component parts. But anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry knows full well that such analogies do not apply to atoms and molecules. If the physical sciences have taught us nothing else, it's that the world of the very small is surprisingly counterintuitive. Processes in the realm of the microscopic simply do not behave as one might expect based on our experience living on the macroscopic plane. Electric charges, energy barriers, and nuclear forces all dominate the realm of the minuscule and compel individual atoms to form stable chemical bonds with neighboring elements, blindly building molecular structures of every possible type and complexity that the laws of physical chemistry will allow.

Objects large enough to arouse our naked senses, on the other hand, behave quite differently. Because they exhibit no special affinity for one another, the scattered components of a disassembled watch will never coalesce of their own accord-the odds against such haphazard assemblies are simply too long. Nature, however, does not act without organizational tendencies nor are living organisms randomly assembled. There is now ample reason to believe that simple unicellular life forms arose through processes endemic to the life-friendly universe we occupy and that more sophisticated beings slowly emerged from these modest beginnings. Indeed, all complex organisms on Earth (including humans) begin life as single cells that multiply, differentiate, and ultimately mature to assume the form of its parent-all in strict accordance with the natural laws of biochemistry."

the journal is put out by this group

The Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal
An International Organization
Paul Kurtz, Chairman; professor emeritus of philosophy, State University of New York at Buffalo
Barry Karr, Executive Director
Joe Nickell, Senior Research Fellow
Massimo Polidoro, Research Fellow
Richard Wiseman, Research Fellow
Lee Nisbet, Special Projects Director
Fellows
James E. Alcock,* psychologist, York Univ., Toronto
Jerry Andrus, magician and inventor, Albany, Oregon
Marcia Angell, M.D., former editor-in-chief, New England Journal of Medicine
Robert A. Baker, psychologist, Univ. of Kentucky
Stephen Barrett, M.D., psychiatrist, author, consumer advocate, Allentown, Pa.
Barry Beyerstein,* biopsychologist, Simon Fraser Univ., Vancouver, B.C., Canada
Irving Biederman, psychologist, Univ. of Southern California
Susan Blackmore, psychologist, Univ. of the West of England, Bristol
Henri Broch, physicist, Univ. of Nice, France
Jan Harold Brunvand, folklorist, professor of English, Univ. of Utah
Vern Bullough, Distinguished Professor, State Univ. of New York
Mario Bunge, philosopher, McGill University
John R. Cole, anthropologist, Dept of Anthropology, UMass-Amherst; Organismic and Evolutionary Biology, UMass
Frederick Crews, literary and cultural critic, professor emeritus of English, Univ. of California, Berkeley
Richard Dawkins, zoologist, Oxford Univ.
Cornelis de Jager, professor of astrophysics, Univ. of Utrecht, the Netherlands
Paul Edwards, philosopher, Editor, Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Kenneth Feder, professor of anthropology, Central Connecticut State Univ.
Antony Flew, philosopher, Reading Univ., U.K.
Andrew Fraknoi, astronomer, Foothill College, Los Altos Hills, Calif.
Kendrick Frazier,* science writer, Editor, Skeptical Inquirer
Yves Galifret, Exec. Secretary, l'Union Rationaliste
Martin Gardner,* author, critic
Murray Gell-Mann, professor of physics, Santa Fe Institute
Thomas Gilovich, psychologist, Cornell Univ.
Henry Gordon, magician, columnist, Toronto
Saul Green, PhD, biochemist, president of ZOL Consultants, New York, NY
Susan Haack, Cooper Senior Scholar in Arts and Sciences, prof. of philosophy, University of Miami
C. E. M. Hansel, psychologist, Univ. of Wales
Al Hibbs, scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory
Douglas Hofstadter, professor of human understanding and cognitive science, Indiana Univ.
Gerald Holton, Mallinckrodt Professor of Physics and Professor of History of Science, Harvard Univ.
Ray Hyman,* psychologist, Univ. of Oregon
Leon Jaroff, sciences editor, Time
Sergei Kapitza, editor, Russian edition, Scientific American
Philip J. Klass,* aerospace writer, engineer
Edwin C. Krupp, astronomer, director, Griffith Observatory
Paul Kurtz,* chairman, CSICOP
Lawrence Kusche, science writer
Leon Lederman, emeritus director, Fermilab; Nobel laureate in physics
Scott Lilienfeld, psychologist, Emory Univ.
Lin Zixin, former editor, Science and Technology Daily (China)
Jere Lipps, Museum of Paleontology, Univ. of California, Berkeley
Elizabeth Loftus, professor of psychology, Univ. of Washington
Paul MacCready, scientist/engineer, AeroVironment, Inc., Monrovia, Calif.
John Maddox, editor emeritus of Nature
David Marks, psychologist, Middlesex Polytech, England
Mario Mendex-Acosta, journalist and science writer, Mexico City, Mexico
Marvin Minsky, professor of Media Arts and Sciences, M.I.T.
David Morrison, space scientist, NASA Ames Research Center
Richard A. Muller, professor of physics, Univ. of Calif., Berkeley
H. Narasimhaiah, physicist, president, Bangalore Science Forum, India
Dorothy Nelkin, sociologist New York Univ.
Joe Nickell,* senior researh fellow, CSICOP
Lee Nisbet,* philosopher, Medaille College
Bill Nye, science educator and television host, Nye Labs
James E. Oberg, science writer
Irmgard Oepen, professor of medicine (retired), Marburg, Germany
Loren Pankratz, psychologist, Oregon Health Sciences Univ.
John Paulos, mathematician, Temple Univ.
Steven Pinker, cognitive scientist, MIT
Massimo Polidoro, science writer, author, executive director CICAP, Italy
Milton Rosenberg, psychologist, Univ. of Chicago
Wallace Sampson, M.D., clinical professor of medicine, Stanford Univ.
Armadeo Sarma, engineer, head of dept. at T-Nova Deutsche Telekom, executive director, GWUP, Germany
Evry Schatzman, President, French Physics Association
Eugenie Scott, physical anthropologist, executive director, National Center for Science Education
Robert Sheaffer, science writer
Elie A Shneour, biochemist, author, director, Biosystems Research Institute, La Jolla, Calif.
Dick Smith, film producer, publisher, Terrey Hills, N.S.W., Australia
Robert Steiner, magician, author, El Cerrito, Calif.
Jill Cornell Tarter, SETI Institute
Carol Tavris, psychologist and author, Los Angeles, Calif.
Dave Thomas, President of New Mexicans for Science and Reason
Stephen Toulmin, professor of philosophy, University of Southern California
Neil deGrasse Tyson, astrophysicist and director, Hayden Planetarium, New York City
Marilyn vos Savant, Parade magazine contributing editor and CBS News correspondent
Steven Weinberg, professor of physics and astronomy, University of Texas at Austin.
Richard Wiseman, psychologist, University of Hertfordshire
Marvin Zelen, statistician, Harvard Univ.their website is here
http://www.csicop.org/

That's great, New Shiron, but that doesn't answer my monkey-boat question.

That's great, New Shiron, but that doesn't answer my monkey-boat question.

The quick answer is simple transference. As recently as 12,000 years ago the Americas were connected to Asia via the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice Age. Therefore a common ancestor to both South American and African monkeys obviously moved from one continent to another. This land bridge occured during every Ice Age, of which we are aware of at least 7 going back tens of millions of years.

Its a reasonable certainity that at any point during that time the migration occured.

No boats were required, and the common ancestor of the monkeys died out or evolved into something different in the intervening land areas between Africa and South America.

another rebuttal of Creationism/Intelligent design

from a link to the same site I previously mentioned

http://www.csicop.org/creationwatch/controversy.html

article "Should we teach controversy"
summation of the writers major points in the final paragraph, the entire article is a must read as it talks specifically about the situation in Liberal, Kansas

"So that is why ID should not be taught: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes its claims to be false, its defenders have not shown that their theory can account for any of the data evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory even has the potential to produce anything useful to science."

I do appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for being willing to offer answers.

But monkeys aren't migratory, and they live in tropical or sub-tropical climates, so they wouldn't have any business in the Arctic under any circumstance.

Furthermore, there wasn't enough time on the evolutionary clock for them to evolve into non-existence... Monkeys have allegedly been around for less than 30 million years.

Furthermore, even if monkeys migrated (and monkeys don't migrate) across the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East, the mountains of South Asia and Mongolia, the barren tundra of Siberia, the arctic land-bridge during an ice age, through Alaska, through the north pacific, across the rocky mountains, through the Mexican desert...why have monkey fossils never been found in those regions? Perhaps more relevant to the discussion, what did they eat in that time?

Doesn't the scientific method rule that possibility out?

So far, monkey-boats remain the best explanation.

The evolutionists may have an explanation for this, but I haven't heard one yet (which is why I am posing it here).

First of all I'm glad you brought it up, even though you have a number of errors in it. And yes, us evil evolutionists do have an explanation for this. :)

According to evolutionists, the continents of South America and Africa separated 225 million years ago. (see, U.S. Geological Survey, http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/text/historical.html ). By 65 million years ago, the continents of Africa and South America were thousands of miles apart.

That is not correct. Africa and South America started separating only in the Mid-Cretaceous, so some 100 or 90 million years would be more correct, I'd have to look it up though. So in the Tertiary, they weren't that far apart yet.

The first, and by far most primitive, primates did not appear until 60 million years ago.

You're probably refering to the Plesiadepiformes there. Btw, their evolution is fantastically well documentated, thanks to dense fossil record in certain localities in Texas and Wyoming. You can how they start out with smaller forms in the lower strata and get larger in the upper strata of the Paleocene. Looks prettymuch like evolution to me. ;)

Modern monkeys started showing up 25-30 million years ago. Yet, there are genetically compatible (meaning, they can inter-breed) monkeys native to both the African and South American continent.

That is certainly wrong. New World monkeys and Old World monkeys are two entire suborders of primates, with a large number of genera in each group. They certainly aren't capable of interbreeding. You may be refering to the fact that they are genetically similar, which certainly is the case, though. Our friend Bruarong will vehemently deny this, even though i reckon that even the molecular clock coindicides here. :p


The question is, how did monkeys get to both continents?

I'm not sure if I'm more impressed with their swimming abilities, or their monkey-boats.

Any thoughts?

Well, first let's take a bit of a closer look at the primate groups. There are the New World monkeys (the Platyrhini) and the Old World monkeys (the Catarrhini). In the fossil record, the Catarrhini start appearing earlier, in the late Eocene. The oldest known Catarrhinid from Africa is Catopithecus, which is circa 37 million years old. The oldest Platyrhinids from South America are about from the late Oligocene (25 million years ago). Before that time, no monkeys existed in South America. Btw, for the sake of completeness I have to add, Onychophorans are found in Africa and South America as well, and the molecular clock hints at the same time as well.

Ok, now, with that informations, how did they get to South America? Well, they didn't use boats (good one, btw :D) but they probably came there via driftwood.
From what i know, there's also a number of sea mounds on the floor of the Atlantic Ocean which may have been islands at that time, which might have been used for 'island hopping' at that time. And ocean currents probably were also similar so they could have been delivered there.
There's also a number of present-day equivalents, think about the Galapagos islands, or various islands in the western parts of the south pacific. So there certainly is good evidence it may have worked that way.

Btw, it is certain that they didn't get there via North America, because the continents were certainly separated from each other since the Late Cretaceous (circa 75 million years ago), until into in the Pliocene (3 million years ago) the Isthmus of Panama formed.

So that's it. If you regard this as implausible, let me repeat here Creationists haven't even tried explaining the distribution of animals around the world, let alone in their Deluge context, other than their run-of-the-mill "God did it" wildcard without any falsifiable hypothesis.

The quick answer is simple transference. As recently as 12,000 years ago the Americas were connected to Asia via the Bering Land Bridge during the last Ice Age. Therefore a common ancestor to both South American and African monkeys obviously moved from one continent to another. This land bridge occured during every Ice Age, of which we are aware of at least 7 going back tens of millions of years.

Its a reasonable certainity that at any point during that time the migration occured.

No boats were required, and the common ancestor of the monkeys died out or evolved into something different in the intervening land areas between Africa and South America.

Well, against that hypothesis speaks that the monkeys have never been found in North America. And as I elaborated, South America was an isolated between 75 million and 3 million years ago. Thus, the 'island hop' hypothesis is the most feasible one.

I do appreciate your thoughts. Thank you for being willing to offer answers.

But monkeys aren't migratory, and they live in tropical or sub-tropical climates, so they wouldn't have any business in the Arctic under any circumstance.

Furthermore, there wasn't enough time on the evolutionary clock for them to evolve into non-existence... Monkeys have allegedly been around for less than 30 million years.

Furthermore, even if monkeys migrated (and monkeys don't migrate) across the deserts of North Africa and the Middle East, the mountains of South Asia and Mongolia, the barren tundra of Siberia, the arctic land-bridge during an ice age, through Alaska, through the north pacific, across the rocky mountains, through the Mexican desert...why have monkey fossils never been found in those regions? Perhaps more relevant to the discussion, what did they eat in that time?

Doesn't the scientific method rule that possibility out?

So far, monkey-boats remain the best explanation.

Well, they monkeys didn't take the Siberia-Alaska route, but many other animals did (camels, horses, proboscideans - just to mention some) did take that route over and over again. And finally, humans did take it too some 15,000 years ago.

Wisjersey:

I came looking for an educated explanation, and I got one. Thank you. I dispute some of your data (this probably can't be reconciled), but at least your argument is logical with the information that you present.

It sounds like you're saying that the Monkeys island hopped from Africa to South America on islands that have effectively been swollowed by the sea over the millenia. If I understand this correctly, then I do find this implausible, but it beats the heck out of monkey-boats.

As for the "distribution of animals around the world" question, I'm not familiar with the debate (or perhaps just your characterization of it), so I can't comment on it. However, I will share your frustration with Creationists (or anyone, for that matter) who pulls a "God did it" argument, or any other equally-weak excuse. I think the weakest argument I've ever heard was a Creationist (though I don't claim him as our best and brightest) explained that there are Dinosaur fossils because God is testing our faith. I mean, dang... are you serious, man? But in fairness to the other side, an evolutionist once did tell me that 25 million years ago, monkeys swam from Africa to South America.--that one was equally awesome.

Wisjersey:

I came looking for an educated explanation, and I got one. Thank you. I dispute some of your data (this probably can't be reconciled), but at least your argument is logical with the information that you present.

It sounds like you're saying that the Monkeys island hopped from Africa to South America on islands that have effectively been swollowed by the sea over the millenia. If I understand this correctly, then I do find this implausible, but it beats the heck out of monkey-boats.

As for the "distribution of animals around the world" question, I'm not familiar with the debate (or perhaps just your characterization of it), so I can't comment on it. However, I will share your frustration with Creationists (or anyone, for that matter) who pulls a "God did it" argument, or any other equally-weak excuse. I think the weakest argument I've ever heard was a Creationist (though I don't claim him as our best and brightest) explained that there are Dinosaur fossils because God is testing our faith. I mean, dang... are you serious, man? But in fairness to the other side, an evolutionist once did tell me that 25 million years ago, monkeys swam from Africa to South America.--that one was equally awesome.
another explination that would need to take some serious digging (lterally and figuratively) is parallel development. basically when the continents split, two land masses could have the same species. and since Africa and South America are basically the same climate/enviroment, there is a possibility of there being little change of the species. keeping them similar but still different in little ways.

but I'm pulling this outta my sphinter so don't examine it too closely...


this theory... not my sphinter.

Wisjersey:

I came looking for an educated explanation, and I got one. Thank you. I dispute some of your data (this probably can't be reconciled), but at least your argument is logical with the information that you present.

You're welcome. Btw, if you're interested in a similar topic, much earlier I made this post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9067032&postcount=407) on how Marsupials got to Australia. :)

It sounds like you're saying that the Monkeys island hopped from Africa to South America on islands that have effectively been swollowed by the sea over the millenia. If I understand this correctly, then I do find this implausible, but it beats the heck out of monkey-boats.

Well, i have to admit that I have skipped some infos (specifically details on the origin of the islands - it was in connection with some hotspot), mainly because it's been a while since i dealed with that specific topic. I'd have to look it up again to elaborate it further.

As for the "distribution of animals around the world" question, I'm not familiar with the debate (or perhaps just your characterization of it), so I can't comment on it. However, I will share your frustration with Creationists (or anyone, for that matter) who pulls a "God did it" argument, or any other equally-weak excuse. I think the weakest argument I've ever heard was a Creationist (though I don't claim him as our best and brightest) explained that there are Dinosaur fossils because God is testing our faith.

Test of faith? Sounds like Omphalos 'hypothesis'?

I mean, dang... are you serious, man? But in fairness to the other side, an evolutionist once did tell me that 25 million years ago, monkeys swam from Africa to South America.--that one was equally awesome.

Hehe, I see your point there.

another explination that would need to take some serious digging (lterally and figuratively) is parallel development. basically when the continents split, two land masses could have the same species. and since Africa and South America are basically the same climate/enviroment, there is a possibility of there being little change of the species. keeping them similar but still different in little ways.

but I'm pulling this outta my sphinter so don't examine it too closely...


this theory... not my sphinter.

Well, i'm actually going to falsify your hypothesis now. :p

First of all, look at the fauna in South America and Africa 100 to 90 million years ago: Dinosaurs and other mesozoic kin. Then, just because there was a similar climate and environment, that doesn't mean evolution did take place exactly in the same way. It certainly wasn't the case. South America in the Tertiary was an isolated continent like Australia with a fauna that was quite different from the other continents because of the isolation.

Well, i'm actually going to falsify your hypothesis now. :p

First of all, look at the fauna in South America and Africa 100 to 90 million years ago: Dinosaurs and other mesozoic kin. Then, just because there was a similar climate and environment, that doesn't mean evolution did take place exactly in the same way. It certainly wasn't the case. South America in the Tertiary was an isolated continent like Australia with a fauna that was quite different from the other continents because of the isolation.well, I'm no geneticists. nor that much of a Historian. ;)

[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]How do you know what the laws of physics a nature are? Even those who have studied these things for years aren't as sure of them as you apparently are. Are you omnsicient?[ QUOTE]

the best rebuttal to this line of arguement I have ever seen can be found here

Actually, it wasn't a rebuttal to my lline of argument at all. In fact, it was more of a support, as I am personally arguing from the standpoint of the scientific method. By the logic of the scientific method, nothing is ever proven and everything is still questionable. It is certainly often sure enough as to call it "proven" to the layman, but is never actually proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. This is the beauty and strength of the scientific method It is self-correcting.

My point, however, was that we have not figured out all of the laws of physics and of nature (which would just be extensions of the laws of physics). Even those we have are very subject to question. Thus, no one can reasonably say that they have seen something which defies those laws. They can say they saw something that defies the currently theorized views of physics. Of course, by the scientific method, that would mean that the theories need revising.

"So that is why ID should not be taught: The overwhelming majority of the scientific community believes its claims to be false, its defenders have not shown that their theory can account for any of the data evolution accounts for, and they have not provided any reason for believing that their theory even has the potential to produce anything useful to science."

You mean they don't even bother with the fact that ID cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory, regardless of how many people adhere to it, on the basis that it does not follow the scientific method?

Lazy, lazy article writers - they left out the most obvious reason!

Grave_n_idle

The important wording is 'firmament' - which we are taking from the Hebrew "Shamayim" - meaning (basically) 'the visible heavens' - but meaning SPECIFICALLY 'the sky as the abode of stars'...

I did a quick Google on 'firmament and Hebrew' and went to the first entry and found this:
raqiya`
firmament
Gen 1:6, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:7, Gen 1:8, Gen 1:14, Gen 1:15, Gen 1:17, Gen 1:20, Psa 19:1, Psa 150:1, Eze 1:22, Eze 1:23, Eze 1:25, Eze 1:26, Eze 10:1, Dan 12:3 from 'raqa`' (7554); properly, an expanse, i.e. the firmament or (apparently) visible arch of the sky:--firmament.

This is from Strong's Hebrew Bible Dictionary
Not sure where you got your data from. But I don't see it pointing to 'specifically the sky as the abode of stars'

Thus - according to Genesis - the waters 'above the firmament' are actually behind the stars... which certainly discludes the possibility of the 'waters' being clouds. (If you want to look into this more deeply, Genesis 1:14-18 clearly describe how God places the 'lights' in the 'firmament'... which we have been told 'divides' the two waters.

And if firmament simply means 'that which you can see when you look up to the sky', then your explanation doesn't fit.

There are several references in the scripture to the Earth as a 'flat' world... not least being the idea of a mountain from which one can see the WHOLE world... which is impossible on a spherical world, no matter HOW high the peak. We also have references to the 'pillars' on which our world stands, and the 'corners' of the world, for example.

The Bible describes Jesus and Satan going up to a high mountain place and looking at all the kingdoms of the world. Firstly, we don't know if it was in a vision that this took place. Secondly, to be able to see all of the 'known' world of that day would require some special sort of ability, for even were the world flat, you can't see a city at more than 100km or thereabouts on the clearest of days (based on my own experience, but then my eyes aren't the best). Thus, if they were using some special powers to see over the great distance, then it is also possible for them to see 'right round the globe' This is not a reference to the world being thought of as flat, at least not necessarily.

However, even if the writers did think of the world being flat, that doesn't mean that they wrote untruth. They wrote what they understood. Not knowing about genes, radiation, electricity, etc., does not invalidate their account necessarily.

Furthermore, my original point was that a reading of the first chapter of Genesis does not lead to the conclusion of a flat earth view (as Wisjersey seemed to be saying), but that it comes perhaps from reading the works of the later writers.

The corners of the earth, as I understand it, is term widely used in literature, even today, and does not necessarily mean that the writers thought that there were really any corners. Next you will be saying that the writers thought that the trees could 'clap their hands'.

Thus - the Bible clearly describes a flat world with some water on it (initially, covered in water), with a layer of 'sky' above that (housing the sun, moon and stars), and followed in the uppermost level by the 'waters above'.

And where might I find this clear description?

Arguing a literal interpretation of this part of scripture is a thankless task... Either you have to try to argue that the 'waters above' are actually in distant space, or you have to argue that the sky is a blanket that holds the stars and sun, and which literally has 'windows' which can be opened to allow water in.

None of these points are necessary, depending on which definition of 'firmament' you use.

Could you 'see the whole world' from the Moon?

Not in any detail, but you could definitely 'see it'. Thus - a mountain 'high enough' would be able to see the whole world IF (and ONLY if) the world were flat.

You mean they don't even bother with the fact that ID cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory, regardless of how many people adhere to it, on the basis that it does not follow the scientific method?

Lazy, lazy article writers - they left out the most obvious reason!so you only believe that only "sound scientifically proven" subjects be taught?

so you only believe that only "sound scientifically proven" subjects be taught?

Which means all the human sciences get thrown out of the window...

No sociology, demography, economics, anthrolopology, history, theology, religion, visual arts, musical arts, theatre arts, literature arts...

Bye.

Grave_n_idle

Hmmm... I don't know... I have been 'a scientist' for a little over a decade, in one way or another, and (of course) studied science at school also.

I didn't realize you are a scientist. What is your area of study?

Even the haziest of scientific theories should have their origins in observation - 'Dark Matter' being one example... and one of the more nebulous (possible pun...) examples, in my opinion.... but the point remains that the observation comes FIRST.

The observation certainly comes first. My point was that after the initial observation comes the explanation. Often, the explanation invokes some cause that has never been observed. The case in hand is Dark Matter or anti-matter. We have seen some 'black patches' in space. that is the observation. The explanation, though is not based on anyone having detected anti-matter. Thus my point. In science, we are not restricting ourselves to using explanations that are based on fact. In the genetic world, to use another example, people have come up with the theory that evolution involved a series of rapid jumps in the rate of mutation, to explain how, e.g. a deer-like animal could grow a long neck and the blood pressure control mechanisms that would supply enough blood to the head when the animal is stretching up high enough to eat the leaves, without blowing the head off with the pressure every time it went down to drink (I'm describing a giraffe). In order for such an animal to come about through natural selection, the mutations had to fly thick and fast, much faster than the mutation rate that we observe today. Thus, they theorize that the mutation rate must have been faster back then. The observation came first. Then the explanation that supports evolutionary theory. But is there any observation to support the explanation? Not as far as I have read. Thus the scientist has taken a fact, and attempted to explain it based on his world view. Nothing wrong with that, in my view. That is science. Creationism attempts to do the same. Saying creationism isn't science based on that point would not be fair of you.

Does the disgareement between evolutionary camps discredit this? Not at all, quite the opposite, in fact - the conflict in theories is EVIDENCE of the fact that the 'story' follows the observation. If the scheme worked the other way, the disagreement wouldn't happen - because the answers would be 'known'.

My point was simply that observation does not always lead to an obvious conclusion, and that it can be interpreted several ways. The disagreement within the halls of evolutionary thought is evidence for this.

And that, is why Creationism can never stand up to the rigours of scientific analysis. Because, if the evidence presented says there was no 'flood' - the EVIDENCE is discredited, until it matches the potential for the written testimony.

It's a misunderstanding when people think that science has proven that there was no Great Flood. The evidence has been interpreted in another way. Since the vast majority of scientists don't accept the possibility of miracles, it is not surprising that the vast majority of explanations make the flood seem unlikely. The original data doesn't 'say' anything. It's the interpretation that counts. Proof, in this case, is out of reach of science.

If you allow that miracles are possible, then accepting the flood is possible, though there are many questions that are yet to be asked. Does the acceptance of miracles mean bad science? Not necessarily, IMO, although I have seen it happen. But there has been bad science on the side of evolution as well, where people have let go of their integrity in an attempt to 'prove' evolution.

I appreciate that there ARE 'reasonable' people in any religion - Dempublicents is an example of a 'reasonable Christian' on this very forum - but those are the religious persons who accept that there can be conflicts between the theological and the just logical... and who do not try to enforce spirituality on the physical as well as the metaphysical.

Are you suggesting that I am trying to 'enforce spirituality on the physical as well as the metaphysical'?

Regarding the decay thing... you say that 'decay' agrees with the Creationist thinking, but you must realise that it is not unique to it.... observation has given science the concept of entropy, which describes the same mechanism (if you will), but without the hocus-pocus imagery. I'm not sure how you argue that Adamic sin explains why our moon will attempt to fall to Earth... it would seem that sin COULD affect people... it seems unlikely that planets and moons are much influenced by the relative morality of nakedness.

It never entered my head to assume that Creationist thinking is the only way of thinking that takes decay into account. I wouldn't think of insulting the intelligence of many of my colleagues.

....relative morality of nakedness--I missed what you were hinting at there. As for Adamic sin explaining chaos, a reading of the scriptures gives you the story. When man, the most responsible lifeform in all of God's creation, sinned, it caused a schism between God and His creation. The schism has apparently altered some things. We don't know what the world was like before the schism, so we can't say what the alteration is, even if we understood the mathematics of all the laws of nature that operate now. Thus, I can't explain what happened.

1) I am a practising scientist in the field of environmental science, specifically, as it relates to water resources.

2) I think you are confused over what 'Dark Matter' might be...

3) The idea of the rapid jump you speculate is not one I have ever encountered before.... and sounds more like Creationist theory of post-Deluge 'adaptation'. The giraffe neck doesn't 'need' to have evolved ALL in one big rush... and the characteristics that ALLOWED that evolution don't have to have been ONLY for that purpose.

4) Creationism is not, and never will be, science - because it does not acheive even the first level of acceptable scientific rigour.... since it 'assumes' an entity that cannot be falsified. Physics (for example) doesn't 'disclude' the possibility of 'god'... it just doesn't factor him/her/it into the matter at all, and ONLY works with what is observed.

5) Observation doesn't always lead to a clear explanation - true. But, more observation usually gives refinement, or a different approach. This is the 'advantage' of science over religion.

6) Miracles are not scientifically repeatable - and have never been 'recorded'. Thus, there is no reason to assume that they DO exist.

If your 'theory' can ONLY be true if miracles are allowed, you are not adhering to the premise of scientific enquiry... so, no matter what you call it, it is not 'science'.

7) Does 'science' NEED to prove that the Deluge never happened? No - on the contrary... the perpetrators of a tradition as fact, are the persons on whom the burden of proof lies.

'Science' can safely assume that there has been no Deluge in the last 6000 years, because it is not supported with evidence.

8) The 'schism' of which you speak, is not scriptural.

Yes, one would think that is obvious, at least on the face of it. If, however, we did an experiment that showed that under some conditions the speed of light in a vacuum DID change, then your explanation and your phrase 'totally inconsistent with' comes under question.

And, until some sort of evidence can be presented, as to why all the most basic physical assumptions SHOULD be discarded, that matter is moot.

I'd be curious as to what sort of 'thing' you might envision as capable of changing the velocity of light in a vacuum.... I suspect you are going to have to fall back on 'miracles' as the only explanation.

so you only believe that only "sound scientifically proven" subjects be taught?

It is impossible for anything in science to truly be proven.

I do, however, think that only science should be taught as such. Thus, theories which were derived following the scientific method can be taught and can be termed scientific theories should be taught. Those that were and are not (like Creationism/ID/etc) should either be taught as bad science, or not at all.

Which means all the human sciences get thrown out of the window...

No sociology, demography, economics, anthrolopology, history, theology, religion, visual arts, musical arts, theatre arts, literature arts...

Bye.that's right. they need to be careful when arguing against religion, for if you only support "Scientifically Proven" subjects to be taught, alot of valuable things will be lost.

Now that would be a shame. so why restrict some things from being taught in a place that wants to encourage free thinking. Granted some religions are closed minded, but by offering it as electives (not forcing people to take them) one wouldn't be forcing anything down anyones throat. infact they would be learning something that will help tolerance.

It is impossible for anything in science to truly be proven.

I do, however, think that only science should be taught as such. Thus, theories which were derived following the scientific method can be taught and can be termed scientific theories should be taught. Those that were and are not (like Creationism/ID/etc) should either be taught as bad science, or not at all.How about Creationism/ID/Religion be taught as Theology or Divine studies, not as science. would you be against that?

that's right. they need to be careful when arguing against religion, for if you only support "Scientifically Proven" subjects to be taught, alot of valuable things will be lost.

Now that would be a shame. so why restrict some things from being taught in a place that wants to encourage free thinking. Granted some religions are closed minded, but by offering it as electives (not forcing people to take them) one wouldn't be forcing anything down anyones throat. infact they would be learning something that will help tolerance.

Ditto!

If religion was supposed to "encourage" killing, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, what has science done? Pollution, challenging morals, weapons of mass destruction etc. etc.

There are positive and negative sides to everything. Taking anything to an extreme is dangerous.

How about Creationism/ID/Religion be taught as Theology or Divine studies, not as science. would you be against that?

Not in the least, so long as many religions were represented, not just Christianity (and this coming from a Christian).

You mean they don't even bother with the fact that ID cannot possibly be considered a scientific theory, regardless of how many people adhere to it, on the basis that it does not follow the scientific method?

Lazy, lazy article writers - they left out the most obvious reason!

did you read the rest of the article, which was linked to? That was merely the summation of it (as its two pages long I decided not to post it in its entirety)

My personal feeling about this is that when I encounter something new, I first look for an explanation based on the natural laws. If nothing fits, then I DONT just say that it must have been a miracle. However, I realize that is what many people accuse creationists of doing. I think that is not fair. The right response in such a situation, IMO, is to simply say, I don't know.

The problem is saying 'it was a miracle' and 'I don't know' are actually the same thing, since you don't know how God makes miracles happen or why. Is there a limit to how many miracles he can perform in a given space of time? [Genesis' 'day of rest' actually suggests God can become tired after a very large series of miracles] Is there a minimum 'size' of miracle he must perform? Is there a maximum? Is there a minimum number that he must perform in a given space of time? These are the kind of things creationists should be doing to further their theory; attempting to define the mechanism's limitations and characteristics rather than focusing on attacking the validity of a competing theory instead as if that helps them out. Proving an opposing theory invalid does not make your own theory more valid even if you can do it, after all.

The problem is it is impossible to evaluate God because nobody knows for sure he exists; he's only ever been 'observed' subjectively by individuals under distinctly non fair test conditions. One cannot split God into individual processes that can be tested as can be done with electromagnetism or evolution because none of God's processes are able to be measured or even comprehended. While one can make a hypothesis based on the Bible stories, that doesn't prove anything about the underlying mechanism because any conclusion is within the power of an unlimited God.

The 'theory' of creation has zero predictive power [meaning it's mechanism cannot be tested] and total inclusive power [meaning it cannot be falsified because any conclusion no matter how bizarre is within the scope of the theoritical power of the undefined mechanism]. As said before, Creation lacks a definable mechanism and therefore cannot be evaluated. It thus is not science and never will be until you can evaluate God under lab conditions.

But that is because I have studied the Bible long enough to know that the message in it is true and does not contain mistakes that lead to falsehood (though there are many parts that have been misinterpreted, no doubt).

Well, aside from numerous prophesies that failed to come true...

I agree with this. The science world has no way of dealing with the miraculous. But neither can it deal with something as basic as unconditional unselfish love. I think the mathematics would be too complicated!!

Neither does plumbing. Does this mean plumbing is an invalid field of study because it fails to include psychology?

Ditto!

If religion was supposed to "encourage" killing, like the Crusades, the Inquisition, what has science done? Pollution, challenging morals, weapons of mass destruction etc. etc.

There are positive and negative sides to everything. Taking anything to an extreme is dangerous.

well, science invented this wonderful instrument you are using to communicate with people all over the world, it also invented the drugs that save millions daily, produced the power to run the machine you are using,

the list is endless

Faith provides comfort, which is also valuable. But faith can also create situations where the rational is ignored for the irrational, when overwhelming evidence is ignored for dogma. Creationism and Intelligent Design (or as a writer put it, Creationism 2.0) requires faith, and requires a dogmatic religious view and it refuses to accept overwhelming evidence that it cannot be proven without the essential requirement of faith. Evolution on the other hand has been very thoroughly examined, and matches up with advances in learning about genetics. Evolution is about gradual adaptation to changing conditions, ID/Creationism requires that we accept that in spite of strong and thoroughly examined evidence to the contrary, the Earth was made the way it is and that species do not adapt to different conditions.

No, Occam's Razor is about chosing the theory that makes the least unsubstantiated assumptions. But then again, Occam's Razor only applies when both theories make equally useful predictions and have equal evidence, it's a last resort type thing. Since creationism makes absolutely zero useful predictions and has no evidence, Occam's Razor doesn't come into play.

EDIT: In fact, your whole post is ridiculous. You just had to throw in the standard creationist wet dream of throwing a deceptivily simple question at a college professor and he can't answer it to make it even less believable.

Seriously, I haven't seen any science whatsoever out of you through this entire topic. I see things placed in laymen's terms, but you're even often wrong there. You haven't given any actual value to 90% of the terms you've used and have cited one or two experiments that you have either mis-interpreted or deliberately counted on your opposition not picking up on the bull shit.


'In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.' From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Creationism predicts that since most mutations are harmful, and result in information loss, genomes will generally decrease with time.

Absolutely none of the research that I do uses predictions from either creation or evolution. Therefore, it doesn't prove either one. However, the data collected can be explained in terms of both creation and evolution. I prefer the creation explanation, since it fits. For example, in my PhD, I studied several bacterial genes responsible for coding the proteins required for two polysaccharide synthase systems. The same polysaccharides have been found in euglena, yeasts, fungi, plants, and even some polycheate (worms). However, trying to fit these genes on an evolutionary tree doesn't work. The genes in the plants and bacteria have homology (very low) but the genes from the 'inbetween' organism, i.e. the yeast and fungi and algae, do not have any homology. The assumption is that there must be homology because of common ancestry, and thus one would expect the homology to be highest between species that are more closely related e.g. fungi and bacteria. So, to restate the evolutionary theory, which says that gene sequences depend on ancestry. Creation explanation says that gene sequence depends on function. Therefore, we could expect that the gene sequence reflects the purpose for which the gene was created, rather than on gene ancestry. That is where my work came into it. I discovered that gene sequence bears little or no homology, but that the characteristics of the gene depended on the location of the gene product, the conditions under which the gene was switched on, etc.
In this example, I got little help from either explanation, but I did find that creation explanation makes a better fit.

My reference to this work is my PhD thesis, which is sitting in the bottom of a university library. There is no mention of creation or evolution in it, because it was not immediately relevant to my study. I use layman's terms in these posts because I want to be understood by the uneducated as well as the educated. For example, I've no idea about your level of education in science, but it shouldn't matter, for in either case, you will understand (hopefully) what I have written.

I 'threw' in that story because it was a true one, one that left a profound impression on me. I'm not using it to prove evolution wrong, or that my professor was stupid or that he thought me stupid or anything else like that.

Grave_n_idle

I am a practising scientist in the field of environmental science, specifically, as it relates to water resources.

Interesting.


2) I think you are confused over what 'Dark Matter' might be.

Heh, you could be right.

3) The idea of the rapid jump you speculate is not one I have ever encountered before.... and sounds more like Creationist theory of post-Deluge 'adaptation'. The giraffe neck doesn't 'need' to have evolved ALL in one big rush... and the characteristics that ALLOWED that evolution don't have to have been ONLY for that purpose.

The 'rapid jumps' is what I learned in my undergraduate studies in genetics. It's called 'Punctuated Equilibrium'. you can read more about it here, or in a google.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232
Why would the giraffe neck and head need blood pressure control mechanisms if there was no long neck? We haven't seen such a mechanism evolve in humans or any other short neck animal.

4) Creationism is not, and never will be, science - because it does not acheive even the first level of acceptable scientific rigour.... since it 'assumes' an entity that cannot be falsified. Physics (for example) doesn't 'disclude' the possibility of 'god'... it just doesn't factor him/her/it into the matter at all, and ONLY works with what is observed.

Evolution accepts processes that also cannot be proven or falsified. Should it be also considered 'not science'? Perhaps we should relocate both evolution and creation as prehistory, since neither of them can be proven.

5) Observation doesn't always lead to a clear explanation - true. But, more observation usually gives refinement, or a different approach. This is the 'advantage' of science over religion.

I think you would find that there is plenty of refinement going on within the halls of theology.

6) Miracles are not scientifically repeatable - and have never been 'recorded'. Thus, there is no reason to assume that they DO exist.

I have accepted that science is rather limited to things that can be repeated. I'm happy to also accept that miracles are not in the domain of science. But surely you must recognise things that do exist and yet are outside the realm of repeatability. How would you do an experiment to prove unselfish unconditional love that appears to exist here and there among humans? Sure, you can observe the effects of such love, and thus infer that it must exist. The same applies to miracles, IMO.

If your 'theory' can ONLY be true if miracles are allowed, you are not adhering to the premise of scientific enquiry... so, no matter what you call it, it is not 'science'.

I see no reason why science must rule out the possibility of miracles. That would make it look like nothing exists which science cannot explain. Surely you are not claiming that?

7) Does 'science' NEED to prove that the Deluge never happened? No - on the contrary... the perpetrators of a tradition as fact, are the persons on whom the burden of proof lies.

I think we can agree that proving or disproving it is beyond science. What we can do is see if it were possible. I think that is all that is required here. We have still many questions that need to be answered, of course, as does evolutionary theory. But the unanswered questions apparently is not a hindrance to belief, in any case.

'Science' can safely assume that there has been no Deluge in the last 6000 years, because it is not supported with evidence.

I think that depends on who is looking at the evidence.

8) The 'schism' of which you speak, is not scriptural

Genesis 3
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

There is a hint that things today are not as they were.

I have decided after years of blind faith, to re- evaluate my thinking on the flood as reported in Genesis, and this believe me has not been a small decision. I believe now, that there was a great deluge, around 12,000 years ago that wiped out a world wide prehistory civilisation, the myths are in every culture, except afew, Japan and Eygpt being notable standouts in that.
After the catastrophy, we became a hunter gatherer society to survive, the learned survivors of the delulge around the world, taught their farming skills, and other areas of knowlege to survivors, and quickly were awarded godlike status.
All farming and agriculture from prehistoric times as we conventually know it, that is before the rise of Summerian civilisation, reportedly starts world wide in high mountainous areas first, bringing further creedence to peoples who wanted to live far from the sea.

The problem is saying 'it was a miracle' and 'I don't know' are actually the same thing, since you don't know how God makes miracles happen or why. Is there a limit to how many miracles he can perform in a given space of time? [Genesis' 'day of rest' actually suggests God can become tired after a very large series of miracles] Is there a minimum 'size' of miracle he must perform? Is there a maximum? Is there a minimum number that he must perform in a given space of time? These are the kind of things creationists should be doing to further their theory; attempting to define the mechanism's limitations and characteristics rather than focusing on attacking the validity of a competing theory instead as if that helps them out. Proving an opposing theory invalid does not make your own theory more valid even if you can do it, after all.

The problem is it is impossible to evaluate God because nobody knows for sure he exists; he's only ever been 'observed' subjectively by individuals under distinctly non fair test conditions. One cannot split God into individual processes that can be tested as can be done with electromagnetism or evolution because none of God's processes are able to be measured or even comprehended. While one can make a hypothesis based on the Bible stories, that doesn't prove anything about the underlying mechanism because any conclusion is within the power of an unlimited God.

The 'theory' of creation has zero predictive power [meaning it's mechanism cannot be tested] and total inclusive power [meaning it cannot be falsified because any conclusion no matter how bizarre is within the scope of the theoritical power of the undefined mechanism]. As said before, Creation lacks a definable mechanism and therefore cannot be evaluated. It thus is not science and never will be until you can evaluate God under lab conditions.



Well, aside from numerous prophesies that failed to come true...



Neither does plumbing. Does this mean plumbing is an invalid field of study because it fails to include psychology?


GMC Military Arms
The problem is saying 'it was a miracle' and 'I don't know' are actually the same thing, since you don't know how God makes miracles happen or why. Is there a limit to how many miracles he can perform in a given space of time? [Genesis' 'day of rest' actually suggests God can become tired after a very large series of miracles] Is there a minimum 'size' of miracle he must perform? Is there a maximum? Is there a minimum number that he must perform in a given space of time? These are the kind of things creationists should be doing to further their theory; attempting to define the mechanism's limitations and characteristics rather than focusing on attacking the validity of a competing theory instead as if that helps them out. Proving an opposing theory invalid does not make your own theory more valid even if you can do it, after all.

I disagree that where you say that this is what creationist science should be doing. That is what theologians do. From the point of energy, God does not need rest. However, to set an example for humans (who are limited), it may have been necessary for him to rest. Thus the answer for (why did God have to rest) is perhaps better answered by theologians.

I would have thought that the attacks on the evolutionary theory have only made it stronger. Every theory needs its criticism, after all.

My preference for creation is not based on evolution not being a good explanation, but rather that when compared to creation, I find the creation account fits in better with what I have observed in my world (in many cases, but not necessarily all...yet). I find a world that is quite ordered. I've never had a day where the sun has not come up. We always seem to have our winter and spring and summer (although it's getting a bit crazy lately). Things always fall down. Hot air always rises. Everywhere I look, I find order. We have been able to define most of these laws (though we still cannot explain the basis of something like gravity, as far as I have read). It makes sense to me that God put the order there. In my research, I depend on this order to discover 'stuff'. Based on what you have written, my acceptance of creationism means that I could not do any good research at all.

The problem is it is impossible to evaluate God because nobody knows for sure he exists; he's only ever been 'observed' subjectively by individuals under distinctly non fair test conditions. One cannot split God into individual processes that can be tested as can be done with electromagnetism or evolution because none of God's processes are able to be measured or even comprehended. While one can make a hypothesis based on the Bible stories, that doesn't prove anything about the underlying mechanism because any conclusion is within the power of an unlimited God.

Right. On this we are agreed. I also believe that there are things in this world that exist and that cannot be measured by science (e.g. humility, forgiveness, love, mercy, evil). So having God in my world does not mean He clashes with my science. On the contrary, i believe its his pleasure to go with me on the journey (of my research). After all, if He made all the laws of nature, it's His territory that I am exploring.

The 'theory' of creation has zero predictive power [meaning it's mechanism cannot be tested] and total inclusive power [meaning it cannot be falsified because any conclusion no matter how bizarre is within the scope of the theoritical power of the undefined mechanism]. As said before, Creation lacks a definable mechanism and therefore cannot be evaluated. It thus is not science and never will be until you can evaluate God under lab conditions

I think you seem to be comparing modern science with the account in the Bible. That's not really fair.

In my mind, it looks like this:

evolution
evolution history= one in a billion odds
science= repeatable experiments, observation of present day remains
explanation to fit with evolutionary account (slime to man 'miracle')

creation
creation history= Genesis account
science=repeatable experiments, observation of present day remains
explanation to fit with Genesis account (Gods 'miracle')

The Genesis account is not science. Neither is the one in a billion odds, according to your posts IMO. Your definable mechanism is 'one in a billion' odds. Why should creationists be expected to present God with the same sort of mathematics? Science depends on observation and repeatable experiments. Anyone can do this, so long as they adhere to these rules.

Well, aside from numerous prophesies that failed to come true...



Neither does plumbing. Does this mean plumbing is an invalid field of study because it fails to include psychology?

Sheesh, I really stuffed up the last post. Ah, well, still learning

Prophesies......ones that failed to come true? Please tell me more. Personally I have only trouble with one prophecy. But most of the others seem to be good fits. Did I miss something? Then again, perhaps you have been reading the Old King James version, while I tend to read the NIV or the NLT.

Plumbing.....psychology???? What? I think I've managed to get completely confused here. Every time I read it, I'm still not sure what your point is. Care to explain it to me?

I have decided after years of blind faith, to re- evaluate my thinking on the flood as reported in Genesis, and this believe me has not been a small decision. I believe now, that there was a great deluge, around 12,000 years ago that wiped out a world wide prehistory civilisation, the myths are in every culture, except afew, Japan and Eygpt being notable standouts in that.
After the catastrophy, we became a hunter gatherer society to survive, the learned survivors of the delulge around the world, taught their farming skills, and other areas of knowlege to survivors, and quickly were awarded godlike status.
All farming and agriculture from prehistoric times as we conventually know it, that is before the rise of Summerian civilisation, reportedly starts world wide in high mountainous areas first, bringing further creedence to peoples who wanted to live far from the sea.

Good for you. Use your own nogging. I do hope, though, that you are careful with your conclusions. They may need revision at any given time (depending on how much more you learn, on what discoveries that modern science brings to light, etc.).
Personally, it does seem likely to me that the first civilisation after a flood would want to build a long way from the sea.

Good for you. Use your own nogging. I do hope, though, that you are careful with your conclusions. They may need revision at any given time (depending on how much more you learn, on what discoveries that modern science brings to light, etc.).
Personally, it does seem likely to me that the first civilisation after a flood would want to build a long way from the sea.

I believe now, that we were the unwilling victim of the result of a supernova that happened 12,000 years ago that happened only 46 light years from our planetary system, quite close in terms of distance here.
A part of this nova entered our system and wrecked havoc with almost every planet except Jupiter, which was big enough to withstand it.
It was like our solar sysem was the victim of a mugging.
The result on Earth, was for this portion of the nova to pass between the Earth and its moon, and cause the Earth to tilt on its axis changing our weather patterns for good, causing a huge catastrophy of floods, earthquakes, volcanos, mass extinctions, and the ending of an advanced prehistory civilisation.
There is evidence of this civilisation all over the Earth, and more is being discovered all the time.
There was no huge glacier ice age that destoyed this civilisation, as the presence of erratics all over the Earth testify too.The only thing that could have moved these huge boulders/rocks, or even pieces of earth, to far flung locations, geologically different areas to the rock matter was a huge mass of water.

EDIT: Where the eratics were found, there was no presence of any glacial damage, to the rock strata. Indeed one erratic found in England was so big, that it had a village built on top of it.
The force that flung this erratic to its location is too horrific and violent to even comprehend, the wave must have been huge.
Its a wonder that humanity survived this event, we are truly a remarkable resiliant species, and the pride and admiration I feel is beyond words.

and the ending of an advanced prehistory civilisation.
There is evidence of this civilisation all over the Earth, and more is being discovered all the time.
There was no huge glacier ice age that destoyed this civilisation, as the presence of erratics all over the Earth testify too.You kinda failed to provide said evidence...

And given the metric fuckton of evidence we have with regards to the current standard system with a relatively gradual development and a more or less stagnant Homo Sapiens, with a (Very) slow development of primitive iconography, arts and so on, until the start of the neolithic, yes, I would like to see you providing such evidence.

And do me a favour and use actual evidence, not Erich von Dänicken (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erich_von_D%E4niken)esque idiocy.

Incidentally, if the ice age(s) didn't happen, care to explain the fossils (I.e. mammoth, but you're of course free to use the flora and the distinct lack of trees in northern and middle europe during the relevant timeframe), the global geological data, the results of (ant)arctic bore probes etc?

Yes, you kind of have to explain them all in a way that doesn't require an ice age.

The problem is saying 'it was a miracle' and 'I don't know' are actually the same thing, since you don't know how God makes miracles happen or why. Is there a limit to how many miracles he can perform in a given space of time? [Genesis' 'day of rest' actually suggests God can become tired after a very large series of miracles] Is there a minimum 'size' of miracle he must perform? Is there a maximum? Is there a minimum number that he must perform in a given space of time? These are the kind of things creationists should be doing to further their theory; attempting to define the mechanism's limitations and characteristics rather than focusing on attacking the validity of a competing theory instead as if that helps them out. Proving an opposing theory invalid does not make your own theory more valid even if you can do it, after all.

It doesn't emply God was 'tired' at all, merely that He stopped -- I may 'rest from my labor' without actually being 'tired' in the sense you describe. Anthropromorphism shouldn't be taken literally, else statements like "Nature abhors a vacuum" assume that 'Nature' is self-aware and capable of emotion. Water seeks the lowest gravitational point isn't Animist, it's just embuing an inanimate mass of molecules with animate attributes to convey an idea.

God 'resting' is merely a description of what happens when God 'stopped' and not a implication that God can become 'tired'.

And as for serious scientists expousing Creationism, quietly ask some String Theory (M theory to be precise) physicists their personal opinions and you might be surprised. "6 months ago it was a lot easier to refute you on creationism; the more we push branes, the harder it gets though," is a quote from a researcher into quantum gravity.

I recall as a child wondered (re creationism) why God would create all the laws of our physical universe...then in his first act after that, violate all of them in creating everything else. The argument of 'God is timeless' is axiomatic and ergo there may simply be a different 'sense' of time in the creation of this or that -- perhaps even the method of than *poof*-it-exists -- considering also that if God had to look over what he'd done and decide it was 'good' somewhat implies (if you let it) a 'set up conditions for a thing and have a thing behave as you intend' (in much the same way that computer programmers do) -- though that may be just a bit of anthromorphism :) In later years as I learned more about the physical universe and our limitations in ever truly understanding it objectively I began to wonder whether or not there was merely a problem with our frame of reference. Can we, in fact, living at the bottom of a well and only able to know the limits of our world inside that well because we can't 'climb out'. We're begining to understand that there is something outside that well but how much of it we'll ever really be able to know in more than a guess is speculative -- yet intriguing.

All farming and agriculture from prehistoric times as we conventually know it, that is before the rise of Summerian civilisation, reportedly starts world wide in high mountainous areas first, bringing further creedence to peoples who wanted to live far from the sea.

except that isn't so... the book "Gold, Germs and Steel", a recent best seller, available everywhere, traces the origins of agriculture world wide. Ceral crops are all descended from grasses, found in plains regions, and wheat specifically was developed from grasses fround in the plains of Iraq and China. Rice was developed from grasses found in swamps (which are notably not found in mountains), corn was developed in valleys in Mexico and Peru, Barley was developed from grasses found in the steppe lands of central Turkey etc...

Another book, "The Long Summer", looks at this as well, along with the climatic influences that forced humans to develop that agriculture. For example, Palestine was a land of milk and honey (of a sort) for a while, until post Ice Age conditions redirected the rain that usually fell there further north. Same thing happened to the Sahara desert. Soon after the peoples that lived there either developed agriculture in place (Palestine), or moved to the Nile and developed it there.

As far as proof that the Ice Ages occured, a short visit to Northern California, New England, and many places in Europe will provide you with an amazing amount of geological evidence that the land in those places was literally scraped clean and massive amounts of rock were pushed south. The edge of a glacier will show you how it is done. The evidence is conclusively overwhelming.

they're not extinct, god removed them himself

It's not extinct, don't worry. As long as I live and breathe there will be at least one proponent of Creationism.

(It hasn't been that long, maybe a week)

Besides all the "evolutionary proof" in the world doens't negate creationism.
Creationism is just the fact that God did it. There is no HOW in it. For all we know He had a little test tube, some pitri dishes, etc and pushed along the growth of the various species. Perhaps He made things evolve. I'll tell you when I find out.



I'm a creationist!!!

I'm a creationist!!!


GO CREATIONSIM!

for you evolutionists:
SUPPOSING that the law of conservation of mass is correct and true, how did we get everything here? Even though nuclear reactions can create and destroy mass and matter they must start with something. Where did it all start? even a little bit of matter could have gone through a nuclear reaction and gained more mass, but what did it react with and were did that small amount of matter come from?

GO CREATIONSIM!

for you evolutionists:
SUPPOSING that the law of conservation of mass is correct and true, how did we get everything here? Even though nuclear reactions can create and destroy mass and matter they must start with something. Where did it all start? even a little bit of matter could have gone through a nuclear reaction and gained more mass, but what did it react with and were did that small amount of matter come from?
You obviously have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

EDIT: Besides, that has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution.

It doesn't emply God was 'tired' at all, merely that He stopped -- I may 'rest from my labor' without actually being 'tired' in the sense you describe. Anthropromorphism shouldn't be taken literally, else statements like "Nature abhors a vacuum" assume that 'Nature' is self-aware and capable of emotion. Water seeks the lowest gravitational point isn't Animist, it's just embuing an inanimate mass of molecules with animate attributes to convey an idea.

God 'resting' is merely a description of what happens when God 'stopped' and not a implication that God can become 'tired'.

And as for serious scientists expousing Creationism, quietly ask some String Theory (M theory to be precise) physicists their personal opinions and you might be surprised. "6 months ago it was a lot easier to refute you on creationism; the more we push branes, the harder it gets though," is a quote from a researcher into quantum gravity.

I recall as a child wondered (re creationism) why God would create all the laws of our physical universe...then in his first act after that, violate all of them in creating everything else. The argument of 'God is timeless' is axiomatic and ergo there may simply be a different 'sense' of time in the creation of this or that -- perhaps even the method of than *poof*-it-exists -- considering also that if God had to look over what he'd done and decide it was 'good' somewhat implies (if you let it) a 'set up conditions for a thing and have a thing behave as you intend' (in much the same way that computer programmers do) -- though that may be just a bit of anthromorphism :) In later years as I learned more about the physical universe and our limitations in ever truly understanding it objectively I began to wonder whether or not there was merely a problem with our frame of reference. Can we, in fact, living at the bottom of a well and only able to know the limits of our world inside that well because we can't 'climb out'. We're begining to understand that there is something outside that well but how much of it we'll ever really be able to know in more than a guess is speculative -- yet intriguing.


I agree, on the seventh day, god did not get tired. He stopped to look at everything that he had created.

You obviously have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.

EDIT: Besides, that has nothing to do with the theory of Evolution.


i was speaking of how the universe was created.

i was speaking of how the universe was created.
Yes, with terrible pseudo-science and an obvious fail in Physics at school. Regardless, how the universe was created has nothing to do with Evolution.

Yes, with terrible pseudo-science and an obvious fail in Physics at school. Regardless, how the universe was created has nothing to do with Evolution.

Well are you going to answer my question or just atempt to insult me??

GO CREATIONSIM!

for you evolutionists:
SUPPOSING that the law of conservation of mass is correct and true, how did we get everything here? Even though nuclear reactions can create and destroy mass and matter they must start with something. Where did it all start? even a little bit of matter could have gone through a nuclear reaction and gained more mass, but what did it react with and were did that small amount of matter come from?
The conservation of mass has nothing to do with what you're talking about. Conservation of mass deals with fluid mechanics. I assume you mean conservation of energy.

Nuclear reactions cannot create or destroy matter. Nothing can create or destroy matter - matter is simply energy in a different form. Nuclear reactions convert matter into energy. We cannot yet convert energy into matter effectively.

By nuclear reaction I'll assume you mean "fusion", the merging of two light atoms into one heavy one. Fusion takes place when two light atoms combine into one heavy one, simultaneously releasing energy. The "extra atom" must be manually injected (as in man-made fusion reactions), or be forced to fuse due to pressure (as in our sun.) This leaves us with two options (in regards to your question): either the birth of the universe was artificially created (unlikely), or before the big bang there was immense pressure. We know from supernova that once something begins to fuse heavy elements up to iron, it'll rip itself apart and in the process create heavier elements than iron. This is one theory as to how the universe was created.

Timeline:
1. Energy (has always existed)
2. Becomes light, simple matter (hydrogen)
3. Due to pressure in the pre-big bang singularity, these atoms fuse into heavier ones
4. Once the "critical point" of fusion of reached (i.e., there's nothing left to fuse), the big bang happens.
5. This still has nothing to do with Evolution.

Umm... wait a sec, aren't you mixing up 'Big Bang' and 'supernova' there? :confused:

Umm... wait a sec, aren't you mixing up 'Big Bang' and 'supernova' there? :confused:
I was using a supernova as an example as how pressure can induce fusion, then an exposion.

GO CREATIONSIM!

for you evolutionists:
SUPPOSING that the law of conservation of mass is correct and true, how did we get everything here? Even though nuclear reactions can create and destroy mass and matter they must start with something. Where did it all start? even a little bit of matter could have gone through a nuclear reaction and gained more mass, but what did it react with and were did that small amount of matter come from?
The conversation of mass does not exist. You're referring to the conservation of energy. If you want, you can say that energy and its corresponding negative counterpart came into being in two seperate areas due to a flaw in something (still keeping in line with the conservation of energy) which lead to the universe as we know it and mess at the start.

Not saying that's right, but that's how it could be done skirting around the conservation of energy. Just add some negative energy elsewhere.

The assumption is that there must be homology because of common ancestry, and thus one would expect the homology to be highest between species that are more closely related e.g. fungi and bacteria. So, to restate the evolutionary theory, which says that gene sequences depend on ancestry. Creation explanation says that gene sequence depends on function. Therefore, we could expect that the gene sequence reflects the purpose for which the gene was created, rather than on gene ancestry. That is where my work came into it. I discovered that gene sequence bears little or no homology, but that the characteristics of the gene depended on the location of the gene product, the conditions under which the gene was switched on, etc.

I can't believe you claim to have a Ph.D. in the biological sciences and yet have such a very sad understanding of evolutionary theory. Could it be because actually learning it might challenge your pre-conceived notions?

Evolutionary theory does say that gene sequence is affected by ancestry. However, it is also affected by function - through natural selection. You have created a false dichotomy by claiming that evolution claims one and Creationism the other.

Evolutionary theory allows for more than one explanation here. The simplest would be that the gene evolved concurrently in more than one species because they had similar functional necessities. This would also explain what seemed to be similar function, but little to no homology.

Congratulations on your attempt to use big language to confuse the laymen, but you aren't going to fool those who actually know what they are talking about.

I 'threw' in that story because it was a true one, one that left a profound impression on me. I'm not using it to prove evolution wrong, or that my professor was stupid or that he thought me stupid or anything else like that.

Somebody apparently never properly taught you evolutionary theory. Was it your professor? Or your own failure to actually learn it?

Evolution accepts processes that also cannot be proven or falsified. Should it be also considered 'not science'? Perhaps we should relocate both evolution and creation as prehistory, since neither of them can be proven.

Incorrect. All of the processes stipulated by evolution can possibly be falsified. Can they now? Maybe not - but if they exist, it is possible to measure them. If they do not exist, it is possible to falsify them.

God, on the other hand, by definition cannot be measured.

I see no reason why science must rule out the possibility of miracles. That would make it look like nothing exists which science cannot explain. Surely you are not claiming that?

You fail to see the very obvious difference between "not assuming that miracles happen" and "ruling out the possibliity of miracles."

Much like science must be neutral on the possibility of a God existing, it must also be neutral on the possibility of miracles. Why? Neither can possibly be falsified, as both necessarily lie outside the rules of the Universe, and thus are outside the realm of science.

I think we can agree that proving or disproving it is beyond science. What we can do is see if it were possible. I think that is all that is required here. We have still many questions that need to be answered, of course, as does evolutionary theory. But the unanswered questions apparently is not a hindrance to belief, in any case.

Incorrect. Proving it is impossible. Disproving it is not.

snip


A few questions:

First, what organization issued your doctorate, and who were the professors who acted as your panel (the reviewing one).

Second, has your thesis paper been published in any accessable journals (eg, distributed around the nation)?

If so, can we get a citation for it so we can read it?

'In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred. For example, a charred tree on the ground could be caused by a landing alien ship or a lightning strike. According to Occam's Razor, the lightning strike is the preferred explanation as it requires the fewest assumptions.' From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

No, Occam's Razor is that, when you have to theories of equal predictive power, then you take the one that makes the least unsubstantiated assumptions. I'm going to keep calling up the aether theory until you get it through your head. Aether theory was actually a lot "simpler" than current theories of light, but it made an untestable assumption whereas the wave-particle duality did not.

Basically, Occam's Razor says "Do not make things more complicated than necessary" to explain them.

The catch here in the evolution and creation debate, though, is that you cannot apply Occam's Razor as it only applies to theories with equal predictive power. Considering the fact that creationism lacks a natural, valued, testable core mechanism, it has zero predictive power.

[QUOTE=Der Angst]You kinda failed to provide said evidence...

This one here is just an essay, but is proof of gathering support, that the world suffered a sudden cataclysmic shift in nature and weathert patterns, not a slow gradual one.

http://www.essaydepot.com/essayme/2452/index.php

This one is abit hard to read sorry, but its further proof of erratics being deposited world wide by a huge massive shift of water, not from a slow ice age.

http://agg.pnl.gov/projects/nwst.pdf

Old research on erratics, that prove ice did not push these rocks to there present positions.

http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/b07.htm




And given the metric fuckton of evidence we have with regards to the current standard system with a relatively gradual development and a more or less stagnant Homo Sapiens, with a (Very) slow development of primitive iconography, arts and so on, until the start of the neolithic, yes, I would like to see you providing such evidence.

If this was true, then how do you explain, the older pyramids in Eygpt being better made, and more advanced than ones that were built much later?

Here its a decline in knowlege, not a gradual developement at all.
Its as if the Egptians we know of, were copying knowlege they didnt understand.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/art/art04.htm

We only have solid evidence of the known world going back to the beginnings of the Summerian civilisation, however there are world wide mysterys of engineering, that would have been impossible for the ancient Summerians, or Eygptians to handle.


Incidentally, if the ice age(s) didn't happen, care to explain the fossils (I.e. mammoth, but you're of course free to use the flora and the distinct lack of trees in northern and middle europe during the relevant timeframe), the global geological data, the results of (ant)arctic bore probes etc?

Care to explain how mammoths were found flash frozen, with half digested meals in their stomaches?
This is from a sudden tempreture drop, a glacier would have pushed them south by its mass, not gone over them.

I agree the ice age did happen, but it was bought about by a cataclysmic world wide disaster, that dwarfs our imagination, it wasnt a slow gradual process, the mammoths testify to this.
Also uncountable amounts of bones of mammoths, and other large mammals, such as the lions, horses, tigers, dogs, whos bones are mixed in.
The Arctic and Siberian regions have enourmous mass graves of prehistoric animals whos bones are all smashed and twisted, one northern explorer found so many of these bones, that he wondered if the very Island he found them on was held together by ice and bones.
Also caves all over the world, from America to malta to Siberia have been found crammed full of broken smashed animal skeletons buried in silt.
Also were found mixed in with them were smashed human sleletons.

Read down into this one particularly.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/catholicteacher/evolution10.htm


Yes, you kind of have to explain them all in a way that doesn't require an ice age.

I agree there was an ice age, but it wasnt a gradual one, or last as long as is currently believed.

As far as proof that the Ice Ages occured, a short visit to Northern California, New England, and many places in Europe will provide you with an amazing amount of geological evidence that the land in those places was literally scraped clean and massive amounts of rock were pushed south. The edge of a glacier will show you how it is done. The evidence is conclusively overwhelming.

I agree that the ice age occurred, but not the current theory of it being a slow gradual process, also erratics that weigh hundred of tonnes have been found all over the world, where there is no evidence of glacial activity around them, how did they get there?
What force could have moved them?

When will you people learn? :headbang:

When will you people learn? :headbang:

When will you stop excepting unestablished theorys?

[QUOTE]

This one here is just an essay, but is proof of gathering support, that the world suffered a sudden cataclysmic shift in nature and weathert patterns, not a slow gradual one.

http://www.essaydepot.com/essayme/2452/index.php

This one is abit hard to read sorry, but its further proof of erratics being deposited world wide by a huge massive shift of water, not from a slow ice age.

http://agg.pnl.gov/projects/nwst.pdf

Old research on erratics, that prove ice did not push these rocks to there present positions.

http://geowords.com/histbooknetscape/b07.htm

.

I would say that the last source is too old to be creditable, as it is quoting contentions made in the 19th Century without any reference to 20th or 21st Century data. I would say the first source lacks accredidation and therefore is not considered authoritative, and I would say the second source is the same.


[QUOTE]
If this was true, then how do you explain, the older pyramids in Eygpt being better made, and more advanced than ones that were built much later?

Here its a decline in knowlege, not a gradual developement at all.
Its as if the Egptians we know of, were copying knowlege they didnt understand.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C004203/art/art04.htm

We only have solid evidence of the known world going back to the beginnings of the Summerian civilisation, however there are world wide mysterys of engineering, that would have been impossible for the ancient Summerians, or Eygptians to handle..

I would say that current anthropological theory, that is extremely well substanted, that the ancients were indeed very capable of building what they built. That most of the mysterys you refer to (in the vaguest terms I might add) have been tested out on PBS shows on Ancient Engineers, and they showed on film how it could be done using traditional methods, local tools and materials and indicated the likely manhours, available manpower, and likelihood of success (to use but one source). The statement that the older pyramids were more advanced than the later ones is also a fallacy, as there are zigguret (Step type) pyramids that are older and they show an obvious progress in improved construction and engineering techniques. Any scholarly book on Ancient Egypt will indicate such.

[QUOTE]
Care to explain how mammoths were found flash frozen, with half digested meals in their stomaches?
This is from a sudden tempreture drop, a glacier would have pushed them south by its mass, not gone over them.

I agree the ice age did happen, but it was bought about by a cataclysmic world wide disaster, that dwarfs our imagination, it wasnt a slow gradual process, the mammoths testify to this.
Also uncountable amounts of bones of mammoths, and other large mammals, such as the lions, horses, tigers, dogs, whos bones are mixed in.
The Arctic and Siberian regions have enourmous mass graves of prehistoric animals whos bones are all smashed and twisted, one northern explorer found so many of these bones, that he wondered if the very Island he found them on was held together by ice and bones.
Also caves all over the world, from America to malta to Siberia have been found crammed full of broken smashed animal skeletons buried in silt.
Also were found mixed in with them were smashed human sleletons.

Read down into this one particularly.
http://www.catholic-forum.com/catholicteacher/evolution10.htm

I agree there was an ice age, but it wasnt a gradual one, or last as long as is currently believed.

A reaon mammoths were reportedly found with food in their stomachs (not in their mouths, that is another myth) is very simple. They, like modern cattle, digest their food slowly, and current theory is that they fell into sinkholes, died of exposure (from the extremely cold water there), eventually froze solid and were then buried under the mud which then was covered by ice sheets at some point. Television shows on the Discovery Channel will show you that much, and there are plenty of references.

Your sources aren't terribly authoritative, or are extremely vague here. So its hard to look at your evidence. Animal remains found in the Arctic tend to be preserved because of the unique cold and ice conditions found in permafrost by the way. Over several thousand or even several hundred years bones would tend to sink into the mud until bottom is reached, and when uncovered by erosion later would have the appearance of a mass event when they are not.

Bones found in caves along with human bones is very simply handled. Humans lived in caves, brought home game to eat, tossed the bones, and later on buried their dead in those very same caves. Silt is caused by the simple fact that most caves are limestone, tend to be wet, and they collect mud from drainage as limestone is porous, and water even when filtering through limestone will have some mud in it, and will create sand.

I agree that the ice age occurred, but not the current theory of it being a slow gradual process, also erratics that weigh hundred of tonnes have been found all over the world, where there is no evidence of glacial activity around them, how did they get there?
What force could have moved them?

moraines, the material left behind after a glacier retreats, are easily understood by going to this site

http://www.zephryus.demon.co.uk/geography/resources/glaciers/moraine.html

in modern times, especially recently, glaciers have been retreating and leaving those moraines behind. Within the time of the historical record, many of those glaciers have also advanced and the way they scrape the ground have been observed first hand.

The erratics you are discussing were certainly left there by the ice sheets.

However, I will agree with you on one point. There is a theory that an Ice Age can happen quickly, within a couple of centuries, possibly less. Not in days like in the movie "Day after Tomorrow" but still within the blink of an eye in geologic terms.

Care to explain how mammoths were found flash frozen, with half digested meals in their stomaches?
This is from a sudden tempreture drop, a glacier would have pushed them south by its mass, not gone over them.

They were certainly not 'flash-frozen'. They were deposited at the place where they died. And certainly no glacier could have transported them, since there is no evidence for a glaciers in exactly those regions.


I agree the ice age did happen, but it was bought about by a cataclysmic world wide disaster, that dwarfs our imagination, it wasnt a slow gradual process, the mammoths testify to this.
Also uncountable amounts of bones of mammoths, and other large mammals, such as the lions, horses, tigers, dogs, whos bones are mixed in.

To your information, there was not one Ice age, but several (I think four or five) phases of glaciation and warm interglacials. Some of these interglacials were even somewhat warmer than today. For example there were hippos in Europe during the last interglacial..


The Arctic and Siberian regions have enourmous mass graves of prehistoric animals whos bones are all smashed and twisted, one northern explorer found so many of these bones, that he wondered if the very Island he found them on was held together by ice and bones.

You seem to be exaggerating here. Of course the Arctic environment is somewhat better suited for fossilization, hence we get more bones.


Also caves all over the world, from America to malta to Siberia have been found crammed full of broken smashed animal skeletons buried in silt.
Also were found mixed in with them were smashed human sleletons.


Oh, you're talking about the bones in the caves? Let me tell you something. You have to take a close look at the bones. Take the cave bears for example, which have been found abundantly across Europe. You will find that there are only bones of younger individuals and very old (pathogenic) individuals - ie the weakest ones. If you have a cave where the bears hibernate every winter, and do that over a few millennia, you can accumulate a significant amount of bones.
It's kinda similar with caves where lions or hyenas drag their food into. Over time you can accumulate bones.


Read down into this one particularly.

*snip*

I agree there was an ice age, but it wasnt a gradual one, or last as long as is currently believed.

Sorry, but you seem to have little understanding of geology and palaeontology.

I disagree that where you say that this is what creationist science should be doing. That is what theologians do. From the point of energy, God does not need rest. However, to set an example for humans (who are limited), it may have been necessary for him to rest. Thus the answer for (why did God have to rest) is perhaps better answered by theologians.

In other words you are incapable of producing a reasonable hypothesis on why your mechanism does anything, as I said.

I would have thought that the attacks on the evolutionary theory have only made it stronger. Every theory needs its criticism, after all.

Irrelevant. Falsifying one theory cannot make another theory more reasonable; falsifying creationism does not make my theory that I pulled the universe out of my ass an hour ago any more reasonable, for example.

My preference for creation is not based on evolution not being a good explanation, but rather that when compared to creation, I find the creation account fits in better with what I have observed in my world (in many cases, but not necessarily all...yet).

Of course it does, because the creation account's lack of a mechanism means it can incorporate any observation!

It makes sense to me that God put the order there. In my research, I depend on this order to discover 'stuff'. Based on what you have written, my acceptance of creationism means that I could not do any good research at all.

Your apparent ignorance of Occam's razor, the scientific method, the proper definition of macroevolution, the fact your pHD thesis apparently involved copying a discredited argument from a book published in 2000 called 'Icons of Evolution' by Johnathan Wells and so on... These don't exactly do you any favours on that mark, but this is irrelevant and a silly attempt at an ad hominem attack.

Right. On this we are agreed. I also believe that there are things in this world that exist and that cannot be measured by science (e.g. humility, forgiveness, love, mercy, evil). So having God in my world does not mean He clashes with my science. On the contrary, i believe its his pleasure to go with me on the journey (of my research). After all, if He made all the laws of nature, it's His territory that I am exploring.

Emotions are a matter of psychology and are fundamentally immeasurable, stop with this sophistry. Further, 'evil' is an utterly abstract subjective concept that doesn't exist!

I think you seem to be comparing modern science with the account in the Bible. That's not really fair.

Wrong. I am explaining the scientific method and the uselessness of making hypothesis based on Biblical events that do not attempt to prove the validity of the underlying mechanism ['God']. Even if you prove the entire Bible is true to all available data, it still doesn't prove that it wasn't written by Zeus to test the faithful and that Zeus created the world in an entirely different manner. You must demonstrate the validity of the underlying mechanism.

The Genesis account is not science. Neither is the one in a billion odds, according to your posts IMO.

Then you're wrong. A one in a billion chance versus an impossibility means the one in a billion chance is a dead cert every time.

Your definable mechanism is 'one in a billion' odds. Why should creationists be expected to present God with the same sort of mathematics? Science depends on observation and repeatable experiments. Anyone can do this, so long as they adhere to these rules.

Unless their mechanism is untestable, in which case they can't. I have just explained why the Biblical God is untestable, and don't feel like repeating myself.

Prophesies......ones that failed to come true? Please tell me more. Personally I have only trouble with one prophecy. But most of the others seem to be good fits. Did I miss something? Then again, perhaps you have been reading the Old King James version, while I tend to read the NIV or the NLT.

Well, here they all are.

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

Plumbing.....psychology???? What? I think I've managed to get completely confused here. Every time I read it, I'm still not sure what your point is. Care to explain it to me?

You appear to be criticising science for being unable to 'measure' love, even though love is largely a matter of psychology. Since plumbing is also unable to measure love, do you regard it with similar contempt?

It doesn't emply God was 'tired' at all, merely that He stopped -- I may 'rest from my labor' without actually being 'tired' in the sense you describe. Anthropromorphism shouldn't be taken literally, else statements like "Nature abhors a vacuum" assume that 'Nature' is self-aware and capable of emotion. Water seeks the lowest gravitational point isn't Animist, it's just embuing an inanimate mass of molecules with animate attributes to convey an idea.

God 'resting' is merely a description of what happens when God 'stopped' and not a implication that God can become 'tired'.

Absolutely false. God is clearly an anthropomorphic entity according to the Bible: the most obvious line being:

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Further, God has:

Nostrils : Exodus 15:8, Psalms 18:8, Psalms 18:15

A mouth: Psalms 18:8, Isaiah 11:4, Isaiah 30:27, Lamentations 3:38

Feet: Exodus 24:10, Psalms 18:9

Arms: Isaiah 52:10

Hands: Exodus 33:22, Isaiah 49:16, Ezekiel 8:3, Habakkuk 3:4

Fingers: Exodus 31:18, Psalms 8:3

Eyes: 2 Chronicles 16:9, Psalms 11:4

Loins [!]: Ezekiel 1:27, Ezekiel 8:2

An arse: Exodus 33:22

Physical strength: Numbers 23:22 ['the strength of a unicorn,' no less!]

Clothes: Psalms 45:8

Clearly God is able to walk, have a 'face to face' conversation [Exodus 33:11] and many other things that imply a being who's basic form is humanoid. Therefore it is entirely valid to read:

Gen 2:2 And on the seventh day God ended his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made.

2:3 And God blessed the seventh day, and sanctified it: because that in it he had rested from all his work which God created and made.

As a period of rest after a strenuous task. Since there are things God cannot do [Jg.1:19, Mk.6:5, Heb.6:18], implying he requires physical rest after creating the Earth is hardly a push.

And as for serious scientists expousing Creationism, quietly ask some String Theory (M theory to be precise) physicists their personal opinions and you might be surprised. "6 months ago it was a lot easier to refute you on creationism; the more we push branes, the harder it gets though," is a quote from a researcher into quantum gravity.

Appeal to an anonymous and irrelevant authority.

When will you stop excepting unestablished theorys?

Not in this lifetime! Since I don't believe in lives other than this one, probably never.

(...) Absolutely false. God is clearly an anthropomorphic entity according to the Bible: the most obvious line being:

Further, God has:

Nostrils : Exodus 15:8, Psalms 18:8, Psalms 18:15

A mouth: Psalms 18:8, Isaiah 11:4, Isaiah 30:27, Lamentations 3:38

Feet: Exodus 24:10, Psalms 18:9

Arms: Isaiah 52:10

Hands: Exodus 33:22, Isaiah 49:16, Ezekiel 8:3, Habakkuk 3:4

Fingers: Exodus 31:18, Psalms 8:3

Eyes: 2 Chronicles 16:9, Psalms 11:4

Loins [!]: Ezekiel 1:27, Ezekiel 8:2

An arse: Exodus 33:22

Physical strength: Numbers 23:22 ['the strength of a unicorn,' no less!]

Clothes: Psalms 45:8

Clearly God is able to walk, have a 'face to face' conversation [Exodus 33:11] and many other things that imply a being who's basic form is humanoid. (...)

I'd like to add something more regarding anthropomorphism. Apparently, God likes barbeque:

008:020 And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.

008:021 And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done.

:D

I can't believe you claim to have a Ph.D. in the biological sciences and yet have such a very sad understanding of evolutionary theory. Could it be because actually learning it might challenge your pre-conceived notions?

Evolutionary theory does say that gene sequence is affected by ancestry. However, it is also affected by function - through natural selection. You have created a false dichotomy by claiming that evolution claims one and Creationism the other.

Evolutionary theory allows for more than one explanation here. The simplest would be that the gene evolved concurrently in more than one species because they had similar functional necessities. This would also explain what seemed to be similar function, but little to no homology.

Congratulations on your attempt to use big language to confuse the laymen, but you aren't going to fool those who actually know what they are talking about.



Somebody apparently never properly taught you evolutionary theory. Was it your professor? Or your own failure to actually learn it?

I realize that evolutionary theory allows for gene sequence to be based on function as well as ancestry. But that was a modification in the evolutionary explanations. Initially, it was thought that homology meant ancestry. I'm still suprised at the number of times, though, that the ancestry assumption is used in my field of research. It's a bit like the default assumption. True unless proven otherwise. It's like the geneticist is always keen to see his data support the popular theory. Fair enough. It means more approval for him, and potentially more research money.

I have been trying to avoid using big words, as I feel that would make things unfair for those who are not educated in the same area that I am. (Bacterial genetics and biochemistry).

Our discussion would be more pleasant if you left out the insults. They don't make you look more intelligent.

I'd like to add something more regarding anthropomorphism. Apparently, God likes barbeque:
:D
He did like a barbeque... unfortunatly, most people only offered up Burnt offereings, so he got sick of that and sent is son down to tell us we can stop.

Incorrect. All of the processes stipulated by evolution can possibly be falsified. Can they now? Maybe not - but if they exist, it is possible to measure them. If they do not exist, it is possible to falsify them.

So your theory, then, depends on the unknown (information that has not been discovered, and no one apparently yet knows how to discover it). That is fine, except for when you poke a finger at the opposition in the same position and claim some sort of superiority. Evolution is based on guesswork. Creation is based on faith. Both have the element of belief. Therefore, neither can be considered as science (not having the element of repeatibility and observation).


God, on the other hand, by definition cannot be measured.


So God remains outside of science. I'm happy with that situation. It doesn't mean that having God as part of your belief system means that the science you do is somehow inferior. If you are claiming this, I would like to see a step by step explanation in your logic.


You fail to see the very obvious difference between "not assuming that miracles happen" and "ruling out the possibliity of miracles."

Much like science must be neutral on the possibility of a God existing, it must also be neutral on the possibility of miracles. Why? Neither can possibly be falsified, as both necessarily lie outside the rules of the Universe, and thus are outside the realm of science.

I don't see how I have failed to see this. I agree, however, that both God and miracles are outside of science.




Incorrect. Proving it is impossible. Disproving it is not.

Can you disprove that man evolved from slime? Can you disprove the miracle of creation? I think you are claiming a bit much here.

A few questions:

First, what organization issued your doctorate, and who were the professors who acted as your panel (the reviewing one).

Second, has your thesis paper been published in any accessable journals (eg, distributed around the nation)?

If so, can we get a citation for it so we can read it?

I don't see how giving out my details would be an advantage to me in this debate. Plus, it would be easy enough for anyone to lie about such things, and you don't have a way of proving that I am not lying. however, a person who is clever enough should be able to ask me some questions about my claimed area of research (bacterial genetics and biochemistry). My knowledge, or the lack of it, would be good evidence as to whether I am lying or not.

I feel I should be careful about my privacy here.

As for the professors on my reviewing panel.....I don't know who they are. We are not told these things at my university (Australian).

My supervisors and I have written several papers. Two more to go, based on my research. Published in Journals like Microbiology, Reviews in Microbiology, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, and going for one in Journal of Bacteriology and one in PNAS.

my thesis is currently not available for public viewing (have to wait six months to a year, since not all of the data has been published.)

A few questions:

First, what organization issued your doctorate, and who were the professors who acted as your panel (the reviewing one).

Second, has your thesis paper been published in any accessable journals (eg, distributed around the nation)?

If so, can we get a citation for it so we can read it?is this the new norm for debate threads now? asking for verifiable proof of self proclaimed certifications? are we to also start asking for GPA's for everyone else who only professes in getting info from their classes?

is this the new norm for debate threads now? asking for verifiable proof of self proclaimed certifications? are we to also start asking for GPA's for everyone else who only professes in getting info from their classes?

He is claiming some knowledge a priori and we're asking him to prove it.

He did like a barbeque... unfortunatly, most people only offered up Burnt offereings, so he got sick of that and sent is son down to tell us we can stop.

Junii, I really liked your wording here.... chuckle.

For the rest

It is possible to be a good Christian and accept Evolution as the way God has allowed the unfolding of life to occur. The Catholic Church, the Methodist Church and others have accepted it. With faith you can also believe that the hand of God was present along the way to stear things the way he wanted.

But that isn't science. Its faith, and its important to realize that. Science is based on theory supported by substantive evidence and all theories are analyzed extensively by peer review and cross referenced by other branches of science to determine whether or not they are valid.

Faith doesn't require that, nor should it. But Creationism is based on faith, as is Intelligent Design, and cannot be proven because you cannot prove the existance of God. You either accept him on faith, or you don't.

Because it is faith based, ID/Creationism has no business being taught in schools as science. It is a religious viewpoint.

I don't see how giving out my details would be an advantage to me in this debate. Plus, it would be easy enough for anyone to lie about such things, and you don't have a way of proving that I am not lying. however, a person who is clever enough should be able to ask me some questions about my claimed area of research (bacterial genetics and biochemistry). My knowledge, or the lack of it, would be good evidence as to whether I am lying or not.

I feel I should be careful about my privacy here.

As for the professors on my reviewing panel.....I don't know who they are. We are not told these things at my university (Australian).

My supervisors and I have written several papers. Two more to go, based on my research. Published in Journals like Microbiology, Reviews in Microbiology, Appl Microbiol Biotechnol, and going for one in Journal of Bacteriology and one in PNAS.

my thesis is currently not available for public viewing (have to wait six months to a year, since not all of the data has been published.)
No, I'd just like to read it. Always nice to look over published works, get a feel for things. :D

Junii, I really liked your wording here.... chuckle. as one who burned many an offering on my stove... :)

For the rest

It is possible to be a good Christian and accept Evolution as the way God has allowed the unfolding of life to occur. The Catholic Church, the Methodist Church and others have accepted it. With faith you can also believe that the hand of God was present along the way to stear things the way he wanted.

But that isn't science. Its faith, and its important to realize that. Science is based on theory supported by substantive evidence and all theories are analyzed extensively by peer review and cross referenced by other branches of science to determine whether or not they are valid.

Faith doesn't require that, nor should it. But Creationism is based on faith, as is Intelligent Design, and cannot be proven because you cannot prove the existance of God. You either accept him on faith, or you don't.

Because it is faith based, ID/Creationism has no business being taught in schools as science. It is a religious viewpoint.it can be taught in school. (there are those saying nay) not exsculivly nor by singling out only one religion but it can be taught in school as say...Theologly and/or Philosophy or just plain Religous studies.

I realize that evolutionary theory allows for gene sequence to be based on function as well as ancestry. But that was a modification in the evolutionary explanations. Initially, it was thought that homology meant ancestry.

Which is irrelevant. Your claim was that evolutionary theory claimed that homology had to be based on ancestry. If you knew that function was also a factor, why did you leave out that vital piece of information in your discussion?

Meanwhile, the fact that it is a modification is a point in favor of actual science. This is the way science works. It changes in relation to new evidence.

I have been trying to avoid using big words, as I feel that would make things unfair for those who are not educated in the same area that I am. (Bacterial genetics and biochemistry).

But leaving out absolutely vital information in order to create a false dichotomy that you think makes your personal belief look better is fair?

There are only two explanations for you to have left that out. Either you didn't know it (in which case you shouldn't have a Ph.D. anywhere near the biological sciences) or you left it out intentionally (in which case you can't claim to be trying to be fair to those who are uneducated in the field.).

So your theory, then, depends on the unknown (information that has not been discovered, and no one apparently yet knows how to discover it). That is fine, except for when you poke a finger at the opposition in the same position and claim some sort of superiority. Evolution is based on guesswork. Creation is based on faith. Both have the element of belief. Therefore, neither can be considered as science (not having the element of repeatibility and observation).

Horribly incorrect. Evolution is based completely on the evidence. The parts of the theory that have not yet been verified can, within the realm of logic, be verified or falsified. It is physically possible.

A belief in God, on the other hand, can never be scientifically verified or falsified.

So God remains outside of science. I'm happy with that situation. It doesn't mean that having God as part of your belief system means that the science you do is somehow inferior. If you are claiming this, I would like to see a step by step explanation in your logic.

Having God in your belief system has nothing whatsoever to do with your science. As God is outside of science, believing in God is outside of your scientific work. However, if your scientific theory depends on God existing, you have introduced a completely unfalsifiable variable on which your theory depends - which makes it inherently unscientific.

I don't see how I have failed to see this. I agree, however, that both God and miracles are outside of science.

Well, let's see:

{Grave} If your theory depends on the existence of miracles, it is unscientific.

{You} I don't think science has to disprove miracles!!

You assumed that keeping a theory from depending on miracles meant that you had to specifically state that miracles could not exist. This is not true.

Can you disprove that man evolved from slime? Can you disprove the miracle of creation? I think you are claiming a bit much here.

So now you are not only leaving out information, but taking things out of context as well?

That was clearly a statement related to a global flood incident. It had nothing to do with slime or creation.

so Dempublicents1, Evolution is a solid Scientific Theory. but say God started the process of Evolution and it stops being a Scientific Theory? even tho Science cannot prove or disprove the exact process that started life on earth...

so Dempublicents1, Evolution is a solid Scientific Theory. but say God started the process of Evolution and it stops being a Scientific Theory? even tho Science cannot prove or disprove the exact process that started life on earth...

If you personally believe that God started the process of evolution, that is no problem.

If your theory is specifically that God started it - yes, it ceases becoming a scientific theory, as it is dependent upon a completely unfalsifiable premise.

You see, positing a process that started life that is based completely on physical principles can be disproven - one can prove those physical principles to be invalid. Nothing about the origins of life can be proven, but neither can anything in science. However, the existence (or non-existence) of God can never be disproven. It is a logical impossibility, as God lies outside the realm of science.

Because the existence or non-existence of God lies completely outside the realm of science - as a completely unfalsifiable principle, science must remain neutral on the issue.

so Dempublicents1, Evolution is a solid Scientific Theory. but say God started the process of Evolution and it stops being a Scientific Theory? even tho Science cannot prove or disprove the exact process that started life on earth...

A solid theory? Theory is synonymous with conjecture, which is reason without evidence. If evolution's evidence was rhobust, it would be law by now.

If you personally believe that God started the process of evolution, that is no problem.

If your theory is specifically that God started it - yes, it ceases becoming a scientific theory, as it is dependent upon a completely unfalsifiable premise.

You see, positing a process that started life that is based completely on physical principles can be disproven - one can prove those physical principles to be invalid. Nothing about the origins of life can be proven, but neither can anything in science. However, the existence (or non-existence) of God can never be disproven. It is a logical impossibility, as God lies outside the realm of science.

Because the existence or non-existence of God lies completely outside the realm of science - as a completely unfalsifiable principle, science must remain neutral on the issue.

Nothing in science can be proven. Science should remain neutral. Until we have the tools to measure that which we cannot comprehend, the only evidence of the divine is what we feel in our hearts to be true.

A solid theory? Theory is synonymous with conjecture, which is reason without evidence. If evolution's evidence was rhobust, it would be law by now.

You are mixing layman's speak with science. In "science land" a theory is the highest "form". It is the closest thing to "a thing that is true" and it's only a theory when it is backed up by a lot of evidence.

A solid theory? Theory is synonymous with conjecture, which is reason without evidence. If evolution's evidence was rhobust, it would be law by now.

Theory in layman's terms is synonymous with conjecture.

However, in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation which meets all of the available evidence and has not yet been disproven. There is nothing that can be achieved in science these days higher than a theory. In the past, theory that stood for long enough became a law. However, even laws have been disproven (ie. Newton's laws). As such, scientists shy away from using the term anymore. Theory is as good as it gets.

A solid theory? Theory is synonymous with conjecture, which is reason without evidence. If evolution's evidence was rhobust, it would be law by now.

Sounds like you don't know the proper definition of a scientific theory. It's also called 'theory of relativity' for that matter.

Edit:

However, in scientific terms, a theory is an explanation which meets all of the available evidence and has not yet been disproven. There is nothing that can be achieved in science these days higher than a theory. In the past, theory that stood for long enough became a law. However, even laws have been disproven (ie. Newton's laws). As such, scientists shy away from using the term anymore. Theory is as good as it gets.

You've said it. :)

Nothing in science can be proven. Science should remain neutral. Until we have the tools to measure that which we cannot comprehend, the only evidence of the divine is what we feel in our hearts to be true.

Do you also believe in invisible pink unicorns because science cannot show they aren't there?

Do you also believe in invisible pink unicorns because science cannot show they aren't there?

I know I do, and she commands me into a same-sex marriage.
How could I deny her bidding?

http://images.ucomics.com/comics/td/2005/td050514.gif

Grave_n_idle

I am a practising scientist in the field of environmental science, specifically, as it relates to water resources.

Interesting.


2) I think you are confused over what 'Dark Matter' might be.

Heh, you could be right.

3) The idea of the rapid jump you speculate is not one I have ever encountered before.... and sounds more like Creationist theory of post-Deluge 'adaptation'. The giraffe neck doesn't 'need' to have evolved ALL in one big rush... and the characteristics that ALLOWED that evolution don't have to have been ONLY for that purpose.

The 'rapid jumps' is what I learned in my undergraduate studies in genetics. It's called 'Punctuated Equilibrium'. you can read more about it here, or in a google.
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1232
Why would the giraffe neck and head need blood pressure control mechanisms if there was no long neck? We haven't seen such a mechanism evolve in humans or any other short neck animal.

4) Creationism is not, and never will be, science - because it does not acheive even the first level of acceptable scientific rigour.... since it 'assumes' an entity that cannot be falsified. Physics (for example) doesn't 'disclude' the possibility of 'god'... it just doesn't factor him/her/it into the matter at all, and ONLY works with what is observed.

Evolution accepts processes that also cannot be proven or falsified. Should it be also considered 'not science'? Perhaps we should relocate both evolution and creation as prehistory, since neither of them can be proven.

5) Observation doesn't always lead to a clear explanation - true. But, more observation usually gives refinement, or a different approach. This is the 'advantage' of science over religion.

I think you would find that there is plenty of refinement going on within the halls of theology.

6) Miracles are not scientifically repeatable - and have never been 'recorded'. Thus, there is no reason to assume that they DO exist.

I have accepted that science is rather limited to things that can be repeated. I'm happy to also accept that miracles are not in the domain of science. But surely you must recognise things that do exist and yet are outside the realm of repeatability. How would you do an experiment to prove unselfish unconditional love that appears to exist here and there among humans? Sure, you can observe the effects of such love, and thus infer that it must exist. The same applies to miracles, IMO.

If your 'theory' can ONLY be true if miracles are allowed, you are not adhering to the premise of scientific enquiry... so, no matter what you call it, it is not 'science'.

I see no reason why science must rule out the possibility of miracles. That would make it look like nothing exists which science cannot explain. Surely you are not claiming that?

7) Does 'science' NEED to prove that the Deluge never happened? No - on the contrary... the perpetrators of a tradition as fact, are the persons on whom the burden of proof lies.

I think we can agree that proving or disproving it is beyond science. What we can do is see if it were possible. I think that is all that is required here. We have still many questions that need to be answered, of course, as does evolutionary theory. But the unanswered questions apparently is not a hindrance to belief, in any case.

'Science' can safely assume that there has been no Deluge in the last 6000 years, because it is not supported with evidence.

I think that depends on who is looking at the evidence.

8) The 'schism' of which you speak, is not scriptural

Genesis 3
To Adam he said, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you, 'You must not eat of it,'
"Cursed is the ground because of you;
through painful toil you will eat of it
all the days of your life.
18 It will produce thorns and thistles for you,
and you will eat the plants of the field.
19 By the sweat of your brow
you will eat your food
until you return to the ground,
since from it you were taken;
for dust you are
and to dust you will return."

There is a hint that things today are not as they were.

1) Ah... okay... Punctuated Equilibrium I have heard of... although I am not aware of it as being a mainstay of evolutionary theory... more an 'option' on the list.

2) Why would a giraffe need a pressure control mechanism if it didn't have a long neck? Well, just because I don't know for sure... doesn't make 'god' a better answer, does it?

How about the fact that, just perhaps, that 'mechanism' came from an earlier mechanism that served a similar purpose? Maybe the proto-giraffe spent a lot of time with a heavy head close to the ground? Maybe the 'pressure control mechanism' was originally a breathing mechanism, that 'allowed' longer necks to evolve - at which point the specialisation became more pronounced?

You are looking at a mechanism with an unfortunate blindness to the fact that it COULD have arrived in some other fashion than entire.

3) Which 'process' do you believe that 'evolution' accepts without the ability to be falsified?

4) Refinement in theology is only in the commentary. The 'theory' is not questioned.

5) 'Unselfish unconditional love' can easily be explained scientifically... in fact, by evolutionary theory... if you just think about it for a while.

But, while I may see evidence for 'unselfish unconditional love', I have yet to see ANY evidence for 'miracles' that isn't BETTER explained through known phenomena.

6) Anything that 'exists' must 'exist' in reality. If it 'exists' in reality, it is subject to reality, or it affects reality. Thus, it can either me manipulated, or measured.... although perhaps not directly.

If 'miracles' exist, there must be two potential states for every phenomena... one where causality is present, and one where causality is subverted.

If you can PROVE that those two states exist, I am willing to accept your assumption that miracles exist.

7) If we are just talking about whether the Deluge is 'possible'... then there is no discussion. We both agree, that the answer is a resounding 'no'.

You just allow a story to give you a reason as to why it could have happened ANYWAY, surely?

8) The schism that you speak of is flawed. The 'change' described is in God's realationship to Adam, not Adam's relationship to the world.

No longer will God 'provide' a perfect garden of easily available food... now Adam has to work for a living. No mention of a schism.

so Dempublicents1, Evolution is a solid Scientific Theory. but say God started the process of Evolution and it stops being a Scientific Theory? even tho Science cannot prove or disprove the exact process that started life on earth...

You are correct.

And, if you stated that Moon rocks started evolution you would invalidate the 'scientific' integrity of the theory in exactly the same manner.

The theory is fine... it is when you qualify the theory with an extra, non-falsifiable assumptive addendum, that the theory becomes 'non-scientific'.... be that extra information 'religious' doctrine, or 'scientific' speculation.

so is there a valid, scientific theory as to how life got started?

does this theory removed God completely?

so is there a valid, scientific theory as to how life got started?

does this theory removed God completely?

No scientific theory 'removes God'.

'God' is not a quantifiable or falsifiable value - so has no place in science... whether to 'prove' or 'disprove'.

A friend of mine is a conservative Mennonite, and she says that her group has started focusing on moral questions OTHER than the usual debate on evolution.

She says that if evolution helps people understand how to protect animals, understand how to cross-breed new plant species, and produce more food, well that's fine with her. In the meantime she'll prefer helping poor people and hosting bible studies at her home.

She has accepted the fact that evolution is an interesting theory, worth being studied by her and her family, and that might well be true. She says that it wouldn't shock her or make her doubt about God.

so is there a valid, scientific theory as to how life got started?

The currently most accepted theory is one of biochemistry. We have been able to show that conditions similar to those likely on the early Earth can spontaneously create amino acids and nucleic acids. The idea is that these were created and formed chains. Nucleic acid chains are essentially self-replicating. The chains that "competed" the best got more resources and thus self-replicated more often. These chains eventually got sequestered in lipid bubbles (which can also form spontaneously). Over a long, long time, these biochemical processes developed into what we know as life.

Obviously, this is a very, very simplified version. A good biochem book would explain it better.

does this theory removed God completely?

Any scientific theory which depends upon the non-existance of a God would be unscientific on its face. Science can assume nothing about a God. Therefore, it cannot remove or add in God under any circumstances.

The currently most accepted theory is one of biochemistry. We have been able to show that conditions similar to those likely on the early Earth can spontaneously create amino acids and nucleic acids. The idea is that these were created and formed chains. Nucleic acid chains are essentially self-replicating. The chains that "competed" the best got more resources and thus self-replicated more often. These chains eventually got sequestered in lipid bubbles (which can also form spontaneously). Over a long, long time, these biochemical processes developed into what we know as life.

Obviously, this is a very, very simplified version. A good biochem book would explain it better.



It's easy to summarise in retrospect...all of this...all by chance?

It's easy to summarise in retrospect...all of this...all by chance?
Why not?

(Actually it isn't. Given the fact that life has a finite probability of occuring and there is an infinite amount of space/time, its number had to come up sometime. This is proved by the fact that we are here.)

Why not?

(Actually it isn't. Given the fact that life has a finite probability of occuring and there is an infinite amount of space/time, its number had to come up sometime. This is proved by the fact that we are here.)

But something quite as perfect? Chance bringing perfection is not a strong concept. Something has to be planned to be anywhere near perfection.

But something quite as perfect? Chance bringing perfection is not a strong concept. Something has to be planned to be anywhere near perfection.
We aren't anywhere close to perfect. Sorry.

But something quite as perfect? Chance bringing perfection is not a strong concept. Something has to be planned to be anywhere near perfection.

Your logic is flawed. You are assuming that what you currently see is perfect.

Meanwhile, if you do believe in a God, then it isn't all that odd at all. An omniscient God would know the exact variables to put in to make life become exactly what it is today. It doesn't matter at what point God started it off - it could have been the creation of the world, the creation of the universe, what-have-you. An omniscient God would know all the variables - and thus the end result.

Your logic is flawed. You are assuming that what you currently see is perfect.

Meanwhile, if you do believe in a God, then it isn't all that odd at all. An omniscient God would know the exact variables to put in to make life become exactly what it is today. It doesn't matter at what point God started it off - it could have been the creation of the world, the creation of the universe, what-have-you. An omniscient God would know all the variables - and thus the end result.

Well, it is pretty, for me. Speculation is not healthy, so I'll stop at that.

You are right, actually. As long as God was behind all this, it doesn't matter whether He created in one bang or let the embryonic world grow slowly. As long as God was behind that.

Speculation is not healthy, so I'll stop at that.

If everyone thought like that we'd still be sitting in caves trying to figure out if rocks were edible.

If everyone thought like that we'd still be sitting in caves trying to figure out if rocks were edible.

No no. Dreaming and speculating are different concepts...

No no. Dreaming and speculating are different concepts...

Nonsense, as soon as you are theorising that you can do something you haven't yet done, you are speculating. If someone knocks on your door you will grip the handle and open it even though this action could lead to your death from an amusing weight with 'ten tons' written on it suspended above you, and even though your door handle could be red hot, and even though there could be a shark waiting for you outside...

If we had never engaged in speculation we would still be living in caves, because we would never have attempted to better ourselves. A scientific hypothesis is speculation until it has been tested. You live in a society the technical grandeur of which is the proof that you are wrong.

You are right, actually. As long as God was behind all this, it doesn't matter whether He created in one bang or let the embryonic world grow slowly. As long as God was behind that.

Exactly.

Of course, the statement that God was behind it is a belief, not an observation or a scientific theory. That doesn't, of course, demean it - but it does mean that it shouldn't be taught in a science class.

Exactly.

Of course, the statement that God was behind it is a belief, not an observation or a scientific theory. That doesn't, of course, demean it - but it does mean that it shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Exactly ... not a scientific theory

I am a firm believer we should have some sort of taught theology in a theology class

(I bet some schools do already but I am not sure)

Exactly.

Of course, the statement that God was behind it is a belief, not an observation or a scientific theory. That doesn't, of course, demean it - but it does mean that it shouldn't be taught in a science class.
Of course not!

Then again, evolution as the method in which life arose should also only be taken as a theory, as it has not - and will never be without a time machine - be proven as solid fact without doubt.

Same damn reason why creationism will allways be a therory and not fact, can't prove it till ya meet the devine yourself. Then again ya can't come back so ya can never prove it wrong or true.

Of course not!

Then again, evolution as the method in which life arose should also only be taken as a theory, as it has not - and will never be without a time machine - be proven as solid fact without doubt.

I disagree. First of all we have seen evolution at work, and the longer humanity persists the more we will see. And maybe, just maybe, we'll find another example of evolution out there on some distant planet.

Edit: We don't exactly need a time machine, we have the fossil record.

Of course not!

Then again, evolution as the method in which life arose should also only be taken as a theory, as it has not - and will never be without a time machine - be proven as solid fact without doubt.
Actually you could prove evolutionism by studying the evolution of an alien species as you see it evolve using satilites and probes. Though that won't be for some time.

I disagree. First of all we have seen evolution at work, and the longer humanity persists the more we will see. And maybe, just maybe, we'll find another example of evolution out there on some distant planet.

Edit: We don't exactly need a time machine, we have the fossil record.

No no. Nobody's seen or documented or proven that a single cell evolve into double cell, then fish turning into mammals and monkeys into man.

Strictly speaking, this topic is science history, not science. And history has numerous interpretations and can always be proven wrong (or more correct) in the future. Currently, no intepretation can be proven more correct nor wrong, so they are all theories.

You are all aware of that we have observed evolution, right?

No no. Nobody's seen or documented or proven that a single cell evolve into double cell, then fish turning into mammals and monkeys into man.

Strictly speaking, this topic is science history, not science. And history has numerous interpretations and can always be proven wrong (or more correct) in the future. Currently, no intepretation can be proven more correct nor wrong, so they are all theories.

Fish didn't turn into mammals outright, you ignore a multiplicity of intermediates of amphibians, reptiles and mammal-like reptiles...

You are mostly going to get irate; but that's irrelevant ~ Watching creatures 'evolve' does not create any proof of the theory of evolution itself, which was proposed as the origin of species.

What 'watching' creatures evolve really does, is shows 'why' Darwin came up with his theory of random mutation and natural selection.

Of the first part, evolving creatures I would say the evidence was unchallengeable, as to the second part, random mutation for natural selection, I would say, "Balderdash Bullshit :D

No no. Nobody's seen or documented or proven that a single cell evolve into double cell, then fish turning into mammals and monkeys into man.

Protists?

It's easy to summarise in retrospect...all of this...all by chance?

Winning the lottery is highly unlikely. Does this mean no-one ever wins the lottery?

Winning the lottery is highly unlikely. Does this mean no-one ever wins the lottery?

And winning the lottery over and over and over again????

And winning the lottery over and over and over again????
And who said they won it over and over and over?

with evolution there are bad mutation ... they just end up culled out of the population more on average

Shut up and wait to die god damnit. Then you can see whether or not you were correct. :)

Winning the lottery is highly unlikely. Does this mean no-one ever wins the lottery?
I find this analogy simple enough for Creationists to grasp:

Imagine life as we know it is sitting at the top of a cliff face. Jumping from the bottom up to the top in one go is impossible, but if you walk around the back, there's a gentle slope upwards, which is entirely possible. Iteration and slow progress make anything Creationists deem "impossible" not only possible, but quite probable too. On the other hand, you have an all-knowing god pick you up and plop you on the top of the mountain. What seems more realistic, walking or levitating on a giant hand?

And who said they won it over and over and over?

with evolution there are bad mutation ... they just end up culled out of the population more on average

You can't win the jackpot once and have an amoeba turn into a human, can you???

You can't win the jackpot once and have an amoeba turn into a human, can you???
Yes, you can. You fail to see the big picture, evolution is a slow process, and does involve mistakes.

Yes, you can. You fail to see the big picture, evolution is a slow process, and does involve mistakes.

Which means you have to hit the jackpot over and over again.

Which means you have to hit the jackpot over and over again.
No, you'll maybe hit the jackpot 1 in 56 million. But that one time is good enough for the genes to be passed on and propagate.

No, you'll maybe hit the jackpot 1 in 56 million. But that one time is good enough for the genes to be passed on and propagate.

It seems that the theory of evolution depends heavily on the theory of the age of the Earth. If either one tumbles the other will inevitably fall as well - and all the fossil records will have to be rechecked. Oooh...beautiful!!

It seems that the theory of evolution depends heavily on the theory of the age of the Earth. If either one tumbles the other will inevitably fall as well - and all the fossil records will have to be rechecked. Oooh...beautiful!!
Yes but so far all the evidence points to an old earth

It seems that the theory of evolution depends heavily on the theory of the age of the Earth. If either one tumbles the other will inevitably fall as well - and all the fossil records will have to be rechecked. Oooh...beautiful!!
Yes, but the "theory" of Creationism is dependant on much more flimsy foundations. Regardless, disproving Evolution (or the age of the Earth) will not prove Creationism to be true.

Regardless, disproving Evolution (or the age of the Earth) will not prove Creationism to be true.

I know. I'm not out to disprove/prove anything. I'm just trying to discuss an issue of interest.

I know. I'm not out to disprove/prove anything. I'm just trying to discuss an issue of interest.
At least we're being civil about it.

EDIT: Tell me, do you believe in the "Young-Earth Theory"? (That claims the Earth is ~6000 years old, or did you only bring up the age of the Earth point in an attempt to point out a possible weakness in Evolution?)

Yes but so far all the evidence points to an old earth

With doubts. With doubts.

At least we're being civil about it.
:fluffle:

With doubts. With doubts.
What doubts?

At least we're being civil about it.

EDIT: Tell me, do you believe in the "Young-Earth Theory"? (That claims the Earth is ~6000 years old, or did you only bring up the age of the Earth point in an attempt to point out a possible weakness in Evolution?)

I'm not too sure about the Young Earth Theory. I just know that I'm a little doubtful about the figure '4.6 BILLION'. 4.6 billion is a lot of years and I'm wondering how Earth could have survived so long.

What doubts?

Some doubts. Say, the current human population of Earth would have accumulated in 5000 years' time, says some UN report.

Some doubts. Say, the current human population of Earth would have accumulated in 5000 years' time, says some UN report.
A source would be nice.

I'm not too sure about the Young Earth Theory. I just know that I'm a little doubtful about the figure '4.6 BILLION'. 4.6 billion is a lot of years and I'm wondering how Earth could have survived so long.
What would destroy earth?

I'm not too sure about the Young Earth Theory. I just know that I'm a little doubtful about the figure '4.6 BILLION'. 4.6 billion is a lot of years and I'm wondering how Earth could have survived so long.
Bear in mind that this figure begins counting from the first blobs of molten slag to come together through gravity. Life is dated as beginning ~3.8 billion years ago.

A source would be nice.
I did a quick google and picked the first site I found. Turns out that it's quite useful. Not a UN report, but: http://www.cdu.jesusanswers.com/population.html

EDIT: I'm not taking this as fact, just a probable piece of evidence.

What would destroy earth?

Meteorites? Could the Sun last that long?

Bear in mind that this figure begins counting from the first blobs of molten slag to come together through gravity. Life is dated as beginning ~3.8 billion years ago.
Yes...3.8 billion is also a lot...

Meteorites? Could the Sun last that long?
There are stars of the same spectral type as our Sun which are nearly 10 billion years old. Our sun has enough hydrogen fuel to last another ~5 billion years.

EDIT: And yes, meteorites have struck the Earth in the past. That is the probable cause for the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Just look at the pot-marks on the moon - if we didn't have an atmosphere as dense as we do (to burn up the meterorites), Earth would look like that.

Meteorites? Could the Sun last that long?
So a meteorite hits earth. Now the earth is a bit bigger.

That is the probable cause for the extinction of the Dinosaurs.
Going off on a tangent, but the K-T impact was a contributing factor, not the cause. It was likely the event that dealt the killing blow, and without it the dinosaurs most likely would not have become extinct, but it was not the cause. It was simply the result of a large number of detrimental factors happening at the same time.

There are stars of the same spectral type as our Sun which are nearly 10 billion years old. Our sun has enough hydrogen fuel to last another ~5 billion years.

EDIT: And yes, meteorites have struck the Earth in the past. That is the probable cause for the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Just look at the pot-marks on the moon - if we didn't have an atmosphere as dense as we do (to burn up the meterorites), Earth would look like that.
Or not as geologically active. The moon's surface has no erosion (our footprints will stay on the moon until something covers them), no wind, no plate movement, nothing to get rid of the craters.

There are stars of the same spectral type as our Sun which are nearly 10 billion years old. Our sun has enough hydrogen fuel to last another ~5 billion years.

EDIT: And yes, meteorites have struck the Earth in the past. That is the probable cause for the extinction of the Dinosaurs. Just look at the pot-marks on the moon - if we didn't have an atmosphere as dense as we do (to burn up the meterorites), Earth would look like that.

And the atmosphere happened by chance too?