NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?id=4140

There's a live webacast of this lecture tonight at 6pm GMT - I'd suggest anyone looking to argue for evolution in the future watches it for pointers, and anyone looking to argue for creationism watch it to be educated.

(Yes, I'm biased in favour of evolution.)

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/event.asp?id=4140

There's a live webacast of this lecture tonight at 6pm GMT - I'd suggest anyone looking to argue for evolution in the future watches it for pointers, and anyone looking to argue for creationism watch it to be educated.

(Yes, I'm biased in favour of evolution.)
meh, I already know what I believe. I don't need some old douche reaffirming my belief.

meh, I already know what I believe. I don't need some old douche reaffirming my belief.
With evolution, it's less a matter of belief and more a matter of understanding the process. With creationism, it's all belief--blind faith, in fact--since there's no process to understand.

With evolution, it's less a matter of belief and more a matter of understanding the process. With creationism, it's all belief--blind faith, in fact--since there's no process to understand.
Well said, well said.

With evolution, it's less a matter of belief and more a matter of understanding the process. With creationism, it's all belief--blind faith, in fact--since there's no process to understand.

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case). Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case). Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.
That you would suggest that evolution is not a process only shows that you don't know the first thing about it. Spend some time in a microbiology classroom studying the current evolution of bacteria and viruses and then come spouting your drivel.

I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.
I hope praying is effective when you actually need a vaccine, something we wouldnt have without the theory of evolution.

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process.

isnt ignorance nice? ever heard of natural selection? it is an undisputable fact and it is only one of the processes that can cause evolution.

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case). Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.So God doesn't lie?
You mean he spoke the truth when he wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son?

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case). Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.
Well, if you take the bible as his literal word he's already lied. He said that insects have four legs and rabbits chew their cud.

So God doesn't lie?
You mean he spoke the truth when he wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son?


He was clearly joking. God's a real funny dude!

Isn't it interesting, couple thousand years ago if you hear voices demanding you kill your kid for god you end up in the Bible, today you end up in a rubber room after you drown five of them in a bathtub.

Guess god neglected to let Ms. Yates in on the joke.

That you would suggest that evolution is not a process only shows that you don't know the first thing about it. Spend some time in a microbiology classroom studying the current evolution of bacteria and viruses and then come spouting your drivel.

bah, just because you can actually observe evolution doesn't mean that it exists. the only time our senses can be used to achieve knowledge is when we use them to selectively read the bible. at all other times they lie.

Yeah, other times it's Satan's manipulating us, tricksey satan!

Well, if you take the bible as his literal word he's already lied. He said that insects have four legs and rabbits chew their cud.

...and that bats are birds, and the world is flat...

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case). Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.
which story of creation? one or two? And do you follow the ban on salad that is included in this creation story? How about the 613 mitzvahs that are included? And which god, since there is an issue with that in creation1?

get a biology text book...or better yet, a petri dish and some ecoli. I can demonstrate evolution with only that. Scientifically, you have no idea what a theory is, do you?

Pastafarians!

Calm down folks... After all, evolution is only a theory.

Then again, the position that the Earth revolves around the Sun, and not visa versa is only a theory.

Evolution is one of the best established theories within modern science. Evolution happens to be a theory that is required for nearly all of our modern biology, anthropology, geology, psychology, medical technology, genetics, and so on and so forth. As differentiated between Darwin's theory, which was, as most scientific theories are, incomplete and in places dead wrong, the modern theory of evolution is the closest we've been able to reach to a definative answer as to how life evolved on the Earth. To argue differently might be your Constitutional right, but it flies in the face of established scientific fact.

While it is true that macro evolution has never been observed, it should be noted that humanity has not known about evolution long enough to observe macro evolution in a controlled environment. The problem being that for the genetics of any particular group to deviate significantly enough to produce its own species would take several centuries at least, even for the quickly reproducing animals such as fruit flies. However, it can easily be infered due to fossil records, which show a definative progression in skeletal structure, and also due to the application of micro evolution.

Micro evolution, on the other hand, has been observed countless times. No one has offered a scientific theory that could come even close to competing with it. Creationism does not even attempt to debate its points, and Intelligent Design tries to embrace it before rejecting it's broader application.

N.B. The above should not be read as an attack on religion. The Catholic Church has embraced the science of evolution, declairing it established fact. Religion will always have gaps in scientific knowledge in which to place "God" or other deities. Evolution, however, is a closed gap. Please don't try to place any deity there, it won't fit.

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case).


You are stretching some "facts" here. You are talking about Macro-evolution which in part you are correct as you can't watch the whole process.

In the matter of micro-evolution, it has been observed many times.


Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Well you need to go back and read the science texts again since you don't understand the difference between the two.

Also, science doesn't deal with facts. It can't. It only offers explanations for events. What we perceive as "facts" could change in the future.



Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.

You just described blind faith. You accept something without question.

I can understand wanting to believe wholly in something, but when he sits there and denies something, and then tries to re-explain it in a way that just proves he's using blind faith, it's just stupid. I mean, what kind of person... *sigh*... Y'know what, nevermind.

I'll be sure to ask god if he really thought this 'religion' thing was worth it.

You are stretching some "facts" here. You are talking about Macro-evolution which in part you are correct as you can't watch the whole process.

In the matter of micro-evolution, it has been observed many times.


Well you need to go back and read the science texts again since you don't understand the difference between the two.

You're right, micro evolution has been observed many times, but it has never been permanent. Take the finches Darwin observed for example. Their beaks change from short to long after depleting a certain food source, and then change back when the new source is depleted. Of course, you won't find that in a textbook. Funny how that works out, huh.

You're right, micro evolution has been observed many times, but it has never been permanent.

define 'permanent'

You're right, micro evolution has been observed many times, but it has never been permanent. Take the finches Darwin observed for example. Their beaks change from short to long after depleting a certain food source, and then change back when the new source is depleted. Of course, you won't find that in a textbook. Funny how that works out, huh.

No evolutionary change is permanent, things are always changing and adapting to their environment. They run out of food, they find something else to eat, they can't eat it so they change or find a way that they can and evolve because of it. They run out of that food, ad infinitum.

You're right, micro evolution has been observed many times, but it has never been permanent. Take the finches Darwin observed for example. Their beaks change from short to long after depleting a certain food source, and then change back when the new source is depleted. Of course, you won't find that in a textbook. Funny how that works out, huh.Their beaks don't change, actually. The population of long or short beaked finches simply fluctuates depending on the availability of food.

But then again, there are better examples, such as insects. Nice short generation times, these little critters have managed to evolve a resistance to pesticides, namely by those that were resistant in the first place being the ones that flourished in the contaminated environment.

So, basically, micro evolution has been permanent. Actually, there's no such thing as "going back" down the evolutionary ladder; the finches aren't a good example for discussing evolution, they were merely a good inspiration.

While it is true that macro evolution has never been observed, it should be noted that humanity has not known about evolution long enough to observe macro evolution in a controlled environment. The problem being that for the genetics of any particular group to deviate significantly enough to produce its own species would take several centuries at least, even for the quickly reproducing animals such as fruit flies. However, it can easily be infered due to fossil records, which show a definative progression in skeletal structure, and also due to the application of micro evolution.

And then there are things like the nylon "bug" (IIRC, it is actually a bacteria) that survives off of digesting nylon. Remember kids, nylon is man-made!

Or the termites that survive by eating concrete? (Scary little buggers)


You're right, micro evolution has been observed many times, but it has never been permanent. Take the finches Darwin observed for example. Their beaks change from short to long after depleting a certain food source, and then change back when the new source is depleted. Of course, you won't find that in a textbook. Funny how that works out, huh.

You say that as if it somehow is a problem to the theory, when, in fact, it is completely in support of current theory. Natural forces cause selection of the creatures best suited to their environment. Now, what do you think would have happened if the food source didn't change back?

That you would suggest that evolution is not a process only shows that you don't know the first thing about it. Spend some time in a microbiology classroom studying the current evolution of bacteria and viruses and then come spouting your drivel.

The advances made by micro organisms are actually forms of mutation.

The advances made by micro organisms are actually forms of mutation.

...which is, you know, only one of the main foundations of the theory of evolution....

...which is, you know, only one of the main foundations of the theory of evolution....

I belive in the slower process of natural selection and the aforementioned mutations.

I also absolutely belive in god, and dislike the mother *nature*.

I belive in the slower process of natural selection and the aforementioned mutations.

I also absolutely belive in god, and dislike the mother *nature*.

I'm sorry, you'll have to forward that complaint to the human resources department of G.O.D.C.O.R.P., considering that "mother nature" was created by god.

[QUOTE=
Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.[/QUOTE]


HEAR HEAR!*claps* well said:)

*no sarcasim intended-literaly-*

although i do agree with some of the comments, you do need to brush up on your evolutionary theory.

I belive in the slower process of natural selection and the aforementioned mutations.

Natural selection and mutations are not "slower" than evolution - they are the very basis of evolutionary theory itself. If you believe that they exist, you have no logical reason to discount evolutionary theory.

I also absolutely belive in god, and dislike the mother *nature*.

I believe in God. I'm not sure why that has to mislead to disliking nature though. One would think that you would be in awe of God's creation...

HEAR HEAR!*claps* well said:)

*no sarcasim intended-literaly-*

You realise he just wrote a load of old garbage, right? Eevolution isn't in fact propaganda, but can be witnessed via micro-evolution. It certainly isn't 'Propaganda', whereas creationism is really - it just relies on a few religious texts and can't even be tested.

kent hovind is a funny guy.
wish he was here now to debate.
to watch some of the most entertaining lectures seach his name on google video.

Natural selection and mutations are not "slower" than evolution - they are the very basis of evolutionary theory itself. If you believe that they exist, you have no logical reason to discount evolutionary theory.



I believe in God. I'm not sure why that has to mislead to disliking nature though. One would think that you would be in awe of God's creation...

I substituted nature for fucker.

So it would have been: "I absolutely belive in god, and dislike the mother fucker."

I tried to keep it clean.

I'm watching it now. The guy moves like a ninja!

You realise he just wrote a load of old garbage, right? Eevolution isn't in fact propaganda, but can be witnessed via micro-evolution. It certainly isn't 'Propaganda', whereas creationism is really - it just relies on a few religious texts and can't even be tested.

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution. It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings. Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record. The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda. I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shread of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.

Or the termites that survive by eating concrete? (Scary little buggers)


Whoa! Got a link? I just dealt with the wood eating bastards on my home.

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution. It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings. Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record. The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda. I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shread of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.


Hooyah.

kent hovind is a funny guy.
wish he was here now to debate.
to watch some of the most entertaining lectures seach his name on google video.

Funny as in the guy in nuts?

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution. It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings. Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record. The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda. I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shread of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.


Ok, start out with these big scaley critters, almost all lizards everywhere, very few mammals. Now, few million years down the line these lizards learn to fly. Few million more years the scales start to turn into feathers. Few million more years it's all feathers. No more big scaley flying things.

So, um, fossil record never records evolution eh? Sure there are gaps, but never shows? Holy crap you've not paid attention.

Ok, start out with these big scaley critters, almost all lizards everywhere, very few mammals. Now, few million years down the line these lizards learn to fly. Few million more years the scales start to turn into feathers. Few million more years it's all feathers. No more big scaley flying things.

So, um, fossil record never records evolution eh? Sure there are gaps, but never shows? Holy crap you've not paid attention.

And the entirity of said 'scaly flying critters' turned into birds?
There would have been reminants of these animals left today in sufficent numbers.

And the entirity of said 'scaly flying critters' turned into birds?
There would have been reminants of these animals left today in sufficent numbers.
Why?

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution. It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings. Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record. The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda. I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shread of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.

Because they were creationists doesn't mean anything. Science exists regardless of what you believe - they believe god made the earth in six days, they find scientific proof of it being billions of years old anyway. Science is a constant.

The thing about Creationism..if it's what you believe, it's what you believe.

But if you believe it, you should at least accept that people who don't believe it, aren't going to, because frankly, the evidence is pretty strong against you.

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution.
Ahh what?

Well if you understood, it offers some rather convincing evidence to the other.


It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings.

And you just described.....


Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record.

Nope sorry. It means the splitting of a species into two or the change of a species over time into another.


The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda.

Ok take the tinfoil off for a moment. Science and absolute truth? That should be your hint.

Atheistic agenda? You do realize that many if not most scientists are religious right?


I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists?

:D Wow. Considering the creationism movement started in the 60s.


Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shred of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.

And that means.....absolutely nothing. Science is about challenge. In fact it's encouraged. Just because you are famous and or respected, it does not give you the license of being right. Even Pasteur had critics in the very things that made him famous.

"Modern research" Ok I challenge you to present your evidence.

And the entirity of said 'scaly flying critters' turned into birds?
There would have been reminants of these animals left today in sufficent numbers.

Not if natural selection forced them all to either change or die. That's the point. Get it?

Because they were creationists doesn't mean anything. Science exists regardless of what you believe - they believe god made the earth in six days, they find scientific proof of it being billions of years old anyway. Science is a constant.

Give me the unified field equation and i'll go along with you.

If the universe was created by a higher being he could make it in any way he desired: Half corroded isotopes, light particles already crossing the dirac sea and so forth.

And the entirety of said 'scaly flying critters' turned into birds?
There would have been remnants of these animals left today in sufficient numbers.

Why should they?

For example, the only reason we still have Lemurs is the fact they are isolated on Madagascar.

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution. It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings. Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record. The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda. I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shread of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.

If, as you claim, suffering and death disproves the existence of a loving God, God does not exist. Right now in this world there is great starvation, pain and death (of all kinds of animals), or do you reject as atheist propaganda?

If you accept that species can "adapt" where do you draw the line between species (micro and macro evolution). From what I have read, I would argue that some bacteria have evolved into what I would consider different species, how different does their DNA have to become for you to accept them as a different species?

Newton said that in the absence of other evidence the complexity of his thumb convinced him of God's existence-his religious beliefs were grounded in faith and not reason.

There are some aspects of evolution which are somewhat unproven, such as how the pulmonary artery and vein developed in higher species. This does not justify reject the whole theory and replacing it with a wholly irrational one. The Eygptians believed a scarab beetle god pushed the sun across the sky, but we do no teach that in school.

Why should they?

For example, the only reason we still have Lemurs is the fact they are isolated on Madagascar.

Isolated genotypes, essentialy selective breeding without intent.

Give me the unified field equation and i'll go along with you.

If the universe was created by a higher being he could make it in any way he desired: Half corroded isotopes, light particles already crossing the dirac sea and so forth.
You realise that no truth can be found by going down the Omphalos path, right? What if the world was created last wednesday?

Not if natural selection forced them all to either change or die. That's the point. Get it?


Now now, extinction is a myth by the atheists! God would never suffer having one of his creations die out completely!

Faith is humanities explanation for the unexplainable. Religion is the exploitation of it. Creationism is a form of faith. Religion will exploit creation to remain a competitive power.

That's my view anyway.

Science is the new religion. Faith has been axed in favour of the catchy name "scientific evidence" and creationism has been molded like playdough into Evolutionism.

So now Scientific Evidence is being exploited by Science to keep hold of Evolutionism. Like Faith was exploited by Religion to keep hold of Creationism.

Both sides are making a ton out of Creationism/Evolutionism and we're stuck arguing which is what?

I want to know just one thing, and one thing only. Religion or Science can answer it, but it's eluded them for ages.

Wich came first, the chicken or the egg?

There appears to be some proof of macroevolution.

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

Speciation has been observed in the following:

Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas), Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis), Tragopogon, Raphanobrassica, Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit), Madia citrigracilis, Brassica, Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum), Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae).

The site goes on into animals as well (not that the plant/animal distiction is important here) and admittedly my understanding of genetics et al isn't good enough to judge the site, but it would appear as if evolution on the macro scale has been observed.

Give me the unified field equation and i'll go along with you.

If the universe was created by a higher being he could make it in any way he desired: Half corroded isotopes, light particles already crossing the dirac sea and so forth.

Math? As in a Law?

Faith is humanities explanation for the unexplainable. Religion is the exploitation of it. Creationism is a form of faith. Religion will exploit creation to remain a competitive power.

That's my view anyway.

Science is the new religion. Faith has been axed in favour of the catchy name "scientific evidence" and creationism has been molded like playdough into Evolutionism.

So now Scientific Evidence is being exploited by Science to keep hold of Evolutionism. Like Faith was exploited by Religion to keep hold of Creationism.

Both sides are making a ton out of Creationism/Evolutionism and we're stuck arguing which is what?

I want to know just one thing, and one thing only. Religion or Science can answer it, but it's eluded them for ages.

Wich came first, the chicken or the egg?
They egg, although it was an archeopterix that laid it.

Wich came first, the chicken or the egg?

Egg, it's a basic celluar form, chicken eggs are just large hard shelled variations. Lots of earlier creatures laid eggs, not just chickens.

Now now, extinction is a myth by the atheists! God would never suffer having one of his creations die out completely!

Sarcasm, or a ignorant ass. Perhaps both.

Isolated genotypes, essentialy selective breeding without intent.

Nope. Lemurs were on the main continent at one point as well.

Never mind the fact they were around before the old world primates.....

Math? As in a Law?

Elaberate.

Actually, there is no process to evolution, only a "proposed" process. You can't understand something that isn't there; you can only understand an idea (in this case). Scientifically, evolution doesn't even qualify for a theory; it is simply a hypothesis that is propagandized into becoming a "fact".

Creationism is, as you said, faith. It is not, however, blind faith. God has worked many wonders in my life, and fulfilled promises to me that He wrote in His Word. Since He has not let me down yet, I have faith that He is telling the truth when He said He created the earth and its inhabitants in 6 literal days. I have faith and trust in a person until they lie to me, and until God lies, I will always trust Him above Darwin or any other "educated" person.
I always wondered, what is it like to live on a flat earth?

Sarcasm, or a ignorant ass. Perhaps both.

Pure unadultered sarcasm. Though it is something I have heard said before.

All you creationists, why do you think that the simple amoeba had to be created but God -creator of the universe- could just be?

Elaberate.

Are you saying you would believe evolution if it was called the Law of Evolution?

I always wondered, what is it like to live on a flat earth?
It's cool, y'know? The sunlight pours over the land like molten gold!

Are you saying you would believe evolution if it was called the Law of Evolution?

No.

Wich came first, the chicken or the egg?

Egg, not just any egg, specifically chicken egg.

All you creationists, why do you think that the simple amoeba had to be created but God -creator of the universe- could just be?

The next time he plays skeeball I will have to ask him.

Wouldn't the ocean pour over the edge? Or does gravity just stop when the world stops?

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution. It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings. Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record. The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda. I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

This has been worked over hundreds of times already. I suggest you to the talk.origins (http://groups.google.com/group/talk.origins?lnk=gschg) newsgroup.

And if Evolution is a lie, then wouldn't God be even meaner, since all that suffering and death was for no purpose?


As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God. Pasteur, who was a contemporary of Darwin, ridiculed macro-evolutionary theory as nonsense without a shread of evidence supporting it. Modern research has only confirmed his position.

Scientists believed all sorts of things in the 19th century, and most of their ideas have been thoroughly debunked, including this one.

No.

Then why the request for an equation?

All you creationists, why do you think that the simple amoeba had to be created but God -creator of the universe- could just be?

I am I. I can define my own terms.

anyone everheard of the theory of creation-evolution? it works... the chances of primordial slime getting zapped by lightning and turning into a microorganism are about a zillion to one... and since there is obvious evidence of evolution why can't they both be put together? church authorities and scientists agree that this theory works and has yet to be disproven. neither side can ignore the facts... atheists can't deny creationism simply because they don't like or believe in God and religious people can't deny evolutionism because of the evidence... with creationevolution nothing is left to argue and everyone can be pacified knowing that its the truth

i hope you hear me out

Wouldn't the ocean pour over the edge? Or does gravity just stop when the world stops?

God actually holds it all in place. *nodnod*

I am I. I can define my own terms.
"I" is talking crap.

Wouldn't the ocean pour over the edge? Or does gravity just stop when the world stops?

I am told it simply wraps around and goes underneath and comes back the other side.

Ships can't wrap around so they fall off.

anyone everheard of the theory of creation-evolution? it works... the chances of primordial slime getting zapped by lightning and turning into a microorganism are about a zillion to one...

Start with a real number, realize that, even now, there's like, 100 lightning strikes a second, and it had a billion years worth of seconds.

I am I. I can define my own terms.

Congratulations you completely avoided the question.

I am I. I can define my own terms.

Funny. I tend to be myself.

Then why the request for an equation?

This equation doesn't exist. (Unified Field) This is were our math breaks down. We cannot define every thing through our sciences, ergo higher being. Untill I see absolute proof to the contrary, I will belive in god.

This equation doesn't exist. (Unified Field) This is were our math breaks down. We cannot define every thing through our sciences, ergo higher being. Untill I see absolute proof to the contrary, I will belive in god.

...What?

anyone everheard of the theory of creation-evolution? it works... the chances of primordial slime getting zapped by lightning and turning into a microorganism are about a zillion to one... and since there is obvious evidence of evolution why can't they both be put together? church authorities and scientists agree that this theory works and has yet to be disproven. neither side can ignore the facts... atheists can't deny creationism simply because they don't like or believe in God and religious people can't deny evolutionism because of the evidence... with creationevolution nothing is left to argue and everyone can be pacified knowing that its the truth

i hope you hear me out

But it isn't the truth, if there is no need to postulate unnecessary entities then don't![/Occam's Razor]

Congratulations you completely avoided the question.

The fact that I can define my own terms illistrates to futility of this debate.

No one is going to adjust their position based apon another's argument.

anyone everheard of the theory of creation-evolution? it works... the chances of primordial slime getting zapped by lightning and turning into a microorganism are about a zillion to one... and since there is obvious evidence of evolution why can't they both be put together? church authorities and scientists agree that this theory works and has yet to be disproven. neither side can ignore the facts... atheists can't deny creationism simply because they don't like or believe in God and religious people can't deny evolutionism because of the evidence... with creationevolution nothing is left to argue and everyone can be pacified knowing that its the truth

i hope you hear me out

...But we don't know that it's the truth.

There is lots of interesting work going on in the field of abiogenesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis) which is looking for the truth.

This equation doesn't exist. (Unified Field) This is were our math breaks down. We cannot define every thing through our sciences, ergo higher being. Untill I see absolute proof to the contrary, I will belive in god.
What? Because we're stupid God exists? Seriously, faith doesn't need a reason so don't bother giving one.

It's cool, y'know? The sunlight pours over the land like molten gold!
Sweet. How big is the wall??

"For the sake of argument, picture a large flat dish. To create gravity on the surface of this dish, you need something under it exerting a force down. The easiest way to do this is to put a large mass under the surface. This mass should be spread out so that all the dish gets a downward force. As an intresting note, you could also think of this as a sandwich because a force will also be pulling at the other side.

To have an atmosphere, you just need a wall around the edge of the dish (a la Ringworld). Gravity holds it nicely down and makes sure it dosn't escape."
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=744510

The fact that I can define my own terms illistrates to futility of this debate.

No one is going to adjust their position based apon another's argument.

Trust me, most people here long ago learned the futility of these debates, we do 'em anyways. So, I reiterate: ...What?

The fact that I can define my own terms illistrates to futility of this debate.

No one is going to adjust their position based apon another's argument.

I know, it is so depressing that so many people around the world will never know they are wrong.

Hey, question, which god created life?

Allah?
Kishna?
Jesus?
Ra?
Shiva?
Mythras?
Zeus?
Great Spirit?

anyone everheard of the theory of creation-evolution?
awesome! thanks baldi! I was looking for a way to call something the Theory of Creationution... and not because it's a real theory.

I know, it is so depressing that so many people around the world will never know they are wrong.

It could be any of us.

I know, it is so depressing that so many people around the world will never know they are wrong.

2.1 billion of 'em?

It could be any of us.

Now if only there was some evidence it wasn't you.

Now if only there was some evidence it wasn't you.

And vice versa.

Sweet. How big is the wall??

"For the sake of argument, picture a large flat dish. To create gravity on the surface of this dish, you need something under it exerting a force down. The easiest way to do this is to put a large mass under the surface. This mass should be spread out so that all the dish gets a downward force. As an intresting note, you could also think of this as a sandwich because a force will also be pulling at the other side.

To have an atmosphere, you just need a wall around the edge of the dish (a la Ringworld). Gravity holds it nicely down and makes sure it dosn't escape."
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=744510
This mass under the surface would be Great Atuin and her buddies, right?

And vice versa.

Faith denies evidence.

And vice versa.

Wait, you talking about Evolution or Atheism?

Faith denies evidence.

Faith in your intelect perhaps?

This equation doesn't exist. (Unified Field) This is were our math breaks down. We cannot define every thing through our sciences, ergo higher being. Untill I see absolute proof to the contrary, I will belive in god.

Well Quantum mechanics is not one of my things.

However, a law is nothing more then a theory with some math. It doesn't make it superior.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science can't even do that. How do you test? Since you can't prove or disprove, it isn't asked.

I apologise, but I have to leave.

anyone everheard of the theory of creation-evolution? it works... the chances of primordial slime getting zapped by lightning and turning into a microorganism are about a zillion to one... and since there is obvious evidence of evolution why can't they both be put together? church authorities and scientists agree that this theory works and has yet to be disproven. neither side can ignore the facts... atheists can't deny creationism simply because they don't like or believe in God and religious people can't deny evolutionism because of the evidence... with creationevolution nothing is left to argue and everyone can be pacified knowing that its the truth

i hope you hear me out

Oh, and while I think of it, please don't use the word 'theory' in the context of a scientific discussion. What you describe does not qualify as a scientific theory.

Faith in your intelect perhaps?
No it does. Faith denies evidence. That's the problem with language you see.

This mass under the surface would be Great Atuin and her buddies, right?
I thought'd be a big space turtle... but you know, whatevers.

Edit: I just looked up Atuin. Me and Pratchett think alike, it seems.

Well Quantum mechanics is not one of my things.

However, a law is nothing more then a theory with some math. It doesn't make it superior.

Evolution has never set out to prove or disprove the existence of God. Science can't even do that. How do you test? Since you can't prove or disprove, it isn't asked.

I just don't belive in evolution, I want evidence to support it that doesn't have any holes. And it seems I have to much faith in machines.

I thought'd be a big space turtle... but you know, whatevers.
Great A'tuin is a turtle.

The fact that I can define my own terms illistrates to futility of this debate.

No one is going to adjust their position based apon another's argument.

Actually you are wrong.

If you present something we can go back an test for ourselves, then yes we would change. Science has changed many times over the years when new evidence appears that invalidates the old. Hell, someday our concept of evolution could be dismissed with new evidence.

Great A'tuin is a turtle.
I spoke in ignorance...

I thought'd be a big space turtle... but you know, whatevers.

Edit: I just looked up Atuin. Me and Pratchett think alike, it seems.

Yep- turtles all the way down.

However, a law is nothing more than a theory with some math. It doesn't make it superior.
no. a law is a theory that has never been disproven, and has no exceptions. drop apple, apple falls.
the mathematical description is identical to the language description, but a lot less clunky, thus making it elegant and useful. think if someone told you to write out 1 to 100 by spelling out every number. you could do it, but it would be irritating. quantum mechanics could be done in english (by a hypergenius of course) but it would be a quantum leap beyond irritating.

I spoke in ignorance...
I refuse to believe that you have never read a discworld novel! I mean, how could you have not read a discworld novel!?

I just don't belive in evolution, I want evidence to support it that doesn't have any holes. And it seems I have to much faith in machines.

Evidince it doesn't have any holes? Well here, you seem to like using writings, the author of which you've never met.

Evolution has no holes

There, Now we have all the evidence Creationism has and more.

On a more serious note, name one of these "holes".

I just don't believe in evolution, I want evidence to support it that doesn't have any holes. And it seems I have to much faith in machines.

Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

So what are these "holes" you suggest that invalidates the theory?

Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

So what are these "holes" you suggest that invalidates the theory?

well obviously, there's no fossil that shows fish emerging onto land.

oh wait, they found that last week on ellesmere island.

I refuse to believe that you have never read a discworld novel! I mean, how could you have not read a discworld novel!?
It took both timing and limber limbs, but I managed.

Near every theory in science has holes. That's why they stopped calling them laws years ago, they figured out that there's almost always an exception, an addendum, or a proviso for nearly everything.

Ever notice scientists dislike using worlds like Always and Never? There's exceptions in most things.

It took both timing and limber limbs, but I managed.

You could probably download for free them with certain programs. Go! Do it now!

You could probably download for free them with certain programs. Go! Do it now!
How about I take a raincheck, I'm in the middle of several books right now but I work in a bookstore. I'll put it to the top of my To Read list.

You could probably download for free them with certain programs. Go! Do it now!
i like to look at the cover when i'm reading. wacky illustrations.

Near every theory in science has holes. That's why they stopped calling them laws years ago, they figured out that there's almost always an exception, an addendum, or a proviso for nearly everything.

Ever notice scientists dislike using worlds like Always and Never? There's exceptions in most things.
It's best not to confuse the fundamentalists, they like their absolutes. Just tell them its set in stone and when it changes, it will be so gradual that they'll hardly notice.

no. a law is a theory that has never been disproven, and has no exceptions. drop apple, apple falls.
the mathematical description is identical to the language description, but a lot less clunky, thus making it elegant and useful. think if someone told you to write out 1 to 100 by spelling out every number. you could do it, but it would be irritating. quantum mechanics could be done in english (by a hypergenius of course) but it would be a quantum leap beyond irritating.

;) It was a fishing expedition to see what he would say.

Actually I have to modify what you have said. There are exceptions because a law invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain cirumstances.

Head into space and drop an apple.....

How about I take a raincheck, I'm in the middle of several books right now but I work in a bookstore. I'll put it to the top of my To Read list.
Good. I can sleep soundly knowing that my future references to the books won't go over your head.

It's best not to confuse the fundamentalists, they like their absolutes. Just tell them its set in stone and when it changes, it will be so gradual that they'll hardly notice.

Last time anyone set laws to stone they were smashed and then selectively ignored for a couple millenia.

Actually I have to modify what you have said. There are exceptions because a law invariably holds true under specific conditions and will occur under certain cirumstances.

Head into space and drop an apple.....
*aims apple at black forrest's head*

Last time anyone set laws to stone they were smashed and then selectively ignored for a couple millenia.
I'm just saying set it stone for a couple billion people, the rest of us will know whats up.

Short of being at a trojan point the apple would eventually fall somewhere. Unless of course you throw it at greater than the escape velocity for the galaxy.

*aims apple at black forrest's head*

No, no, no...You put the apple on the head, then shoot the arrow! See?

Short of being at a trojan point the apple would eventually fall somewhere. Unless of course you throw it at greater than the escape velocity for the galaxy.

You could throw it into orbit around a planet.

*aims apple at black forrest's head*

As long as you don't follow up with an arrow! :D

No, no, no...You put the apple on the head, then shoot the arrow! See?

SHHHHH! :mad:

:p

SHHHHH! :mad:

:p

Just tryin' tah help...emmm...You know what? I'm just gonna call it Turkey from now on...name's too long.

You could throw it into orbit around a planet.

The orbit would eventually decay, unless the velocity was high enough at which point it would break orbit eventually and wander into something else. At some point in the vastly distant future.

Just tryin' tah help...emmm...You know what? I'm just gonna call it Turkey from now on...name's too long.
yeah, sorry black forrest, i wouldn't have thought of the arrow until it was suggested, but now it is necessary. it's not my fault!

edit: i was wondering how long it would be before i got that nickname.

gobble gobble

I just don't belive in evolution, I want evidence to support it that doesn't have any holes. And it seems I have to much faith in machines.

So you need absolute credibility to believe something? Funny, how that's true, yet your default belief is nothing but faith which has many holes of its own.

So you need absolute credibility to believe something? Funny, how that's true, yet your default belief is nothing but faith which has many holes of its own.

Really, it's basically a giant hole in and of itself.

Whoa! Got a link? I just dealt with the wood eating bastards on my home.

With a brief search for a link, it appears that the earlier evidence I had seen of such termites was a bit exaggerated. They tend to find cracks in the concrete, and, in cheap concrete which has quite a few additives, may be able to further weaken it. http://edis.ifas.ufl.edu/MG064

Micro-evolution is not proof of "goo to you via the zoo" evolution.

That might have to do with the fact that there is no such thing as "proof" in science - only evidence. Now, it is evidence that the theory of evolution is viable.

It simply proves animals God-given ability to adapt to their surroundings.

No, it provides evidence that animals adapt to their surroundings, and, if you believe in God, you will see that as a "God-given ability."

Macro-evolution, or one species evolving into a completely new species, has never been observed, whether in nature, the laboratory, or in the fossil record.

Depends on exactly how you define species, as new species of bacteria have been observed from evolution. Bacteria, however, are a little more tricky when it comes to defining "species".

The fact that macro-evolution is taught as absolute truth in the vast majority of American public schools is nothing but atheistic propaganda.

I have yet to see a single school where it is actually taught this way. Maybe if all the lazy students would read the first chapter of their books, which is always assigned.....

I am not saying that someone can't believe in God and evolution at the same time, though they certainly can't believe in a loving God, considering that he would have created the world through millions of years of suffering and death.

Then I guess one can't believe in a loving God now, because one must believe in at least 6000 years of suffering and death.....

Or maybe, just maybe, it could be that nature, even with death, is a beautiful thing.

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists? Great scientists such as Robert Boyle, Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton and Galileo all believed in the existence of God.

Theist != Creationist

As for creationism being propaganda based on a few religion texts, are you aware that the founding fathers of science were almost all creationists?

So ? Scientists are people too. It doesn't mean that science agrees - and science has this wonderful thing called "adaptability". As in "if my hypothesis is not supported by the actual observations, I will adapt my hypothesis" - as opposed to religions "if the observations do not support my beliefs, the observations must be lies/wrong/invalid etc".

Modern research has only confirmed his position.

Really ? Then please link me to at least 10 articles that support this claim, which were published in respected peer reviewed journals. If you are not lying, that should be trivial.

This equation doesn't exist. (Unified Field) This is were our math breaks down. We cannot define every thing through our sciences, ergo higher being. Untill I see absolute proof to the contrary, I will belive in god.

And this has what to do with the debate? One cany believe in God and still use science where appropriate.

Faith denies evidence.

Not necessarily true. The "faith" that some fundamentalists refer to does so, but faith, as a rule - what I would refer to as "true faith", does not.

no. a law is a theory that has never been disproven, and has no exceptions. drop apple, apple falls.
the mathematical description is identical to the language description, but a lot less clunky, thus making it elegant and useful. think if someone told you to write out 1 to 100 by spelling out every number. you could do it, but it would be irritating. quantum mechanics could be done in english (by a hypergenius of course) but it would be a quantum leap beyond irritating.

Any theory that is a valid theory has never been disproven. The minute it is disproven, it is thrown out, or modified to fit the new evidence.

Historically, laws have quite simply been theories that were around long enough that we began to think that they were absolutes. Of course, laws have been found to be wrong....

You could throw it into orbit around a planet.
technically, an orbit is a constant falling where at every point, the object has enough horizontal velocity to turn gravitational pull into a circular path.

technically, an orbit is a constant falling where at every point, the object has enough horizontal velocity to turn gravitational pull into a circular path.

Exactly...Point being?

Exactly...Point being?
sorry...I thought you were saying that it is an example of gravity not having an effect. my bad.

No one is going to adjust their position based apon another's argument.

Actually, rational reasonable people change their view when presented with a good argument quite often. The fact that you say this show that you are not among the rational or the reasonable.

If you actually LISTEN and attempt to COMPREHEND the argument (compiled, refined, strengthened many times over since the days of Darwin,) for evolution, one really has no choice but to accept it (with the caveat of being open to new evidence that modifies one's position.)

Furthermore, just because you believe in God doesn't mean you have to reject Evolution. Lots and lots of things in the Bible have proven to not be literal truth but stories...allegories that help lead one to a worldview based on the traditions and morality built out of a historically-tinged mythos. They should help build your philosophy, not reject reality.