NationStates Jolt Archive

The wounds one. Technically, it could mean hands, wrists, or part of the forearm, but historically the nails were driven through the wrists, and there's no reason to assume that the Romans would go through all the trouble needed to put the nails through the hands, particularly when none of the measures are mentioned. And considering how much suffering those measures would cause, had they been used they would have been mentioned.

Except, since they were cruel enough to place a crown of thorns on his head, and not just placed, but in some accounts, secured... meaning at least the thorns were dug into his flesh. Is it that much of a stretch to nail both hands and tie the wrist? especially when they challanged him to "Come down from the cross".

Some books talk of torture: Smiting of the head, the use of reeds, the crown of thorns. and all it says is that he was cruicifed. with can include nails or ropes. so why not both.

as for why it's not mentioned... maybe because those retelling the tale didn't notice how it was done, but the fact that it was done.

If the accounts had some truth to them, he was ridiculed and tortured from the time his sentence was pronounced to after his side was peirced.

So you guys didn't answer MY QUESTION. How did JP2 help the boy see again. This you must explain to me.

First prove it happened. You've still not offered any evidence that it even occurred.

And would most likely be the abdomen. A puncture wound to the chest would kill much faster than was indicated. A puncture wound to abdomen would allow someone to live for several hours, which would fit in with the timespan given.

except the peircing was done at the end... after he died. but the phrase about blood and water would make the abdomen a more likely spot.

Riiiiiight. And where can you prove this?

The Romans had crucifiction down to a science. What makes you think they'd nail him in the hands when EVERYONE else was nailed through the wrists?

Everyone... but Jesus is the son of God.

Media you can thank them, Jesus had the power to take the pain when nailed by hand. Wrist was added on later because its not possible to be nailed by hand.
can you offer proof of this? the two nailings?

is there two sets of nails on the crucifix that you use for proof?

Except, since they were cruel enough to place a crown of thorns on his head, and not just placed, but in some accounts, secured... meaning at least the thorns were dug into his flesh. Is it that much of a stretch to nail both hands and tie the wrist? especially when they challanged him to "Come down from the cross".

Some books talk of torture: Smiting of the head, the use of reeds, the crown of thorns. and all it says is that he was cruicifed. with can include nails or ropes. so why not both.

as for why it's not mentioned... maybe because those retelling the tale didn't notice how it was done, but the fact that it was done.

If the accounts had some truth to them, he was ridiculed and tortured from the time his sentence was pronounced to after his side was peirced.

There's no reason to assume that it was left out. There's no reason to assume that the Romans would change their practices for one man, even one who claimed to be the Messiah. They had been crucifying claimants to that position for years. Also, all those tortures were often applied to anyone who was crucfied. The whole purpose of a crucifixion was to humiliate the person being crucified. Nothing that was written to have happened to him was out of the ordinary. Why should we assume that one detail, that wasn't even mentioned, was?

First prove it happened. You've still not offered any evidence that it even occurred.

Oh please want me to ship a tape to you. Go to Chruch..

A nun in the Vatican also prayed to JP2 after he died. She had a terrible problem with her Parkinson, and then she prayed next day it was gone. She had it for such a long time, and it went away.

Everyone... but Jesus is the son of God.

Don't lump me in with you.

except the peircing was done at the end... after he died. but the phrase about blood and water would make the abdomen a more likely spot.

Huh. Could've sworn it happened before. Been awhile since I read that part of the Gospel.

Everyone... but Jesus is the son of God.

Do you have any idea how many "sons of God" the Romans crucified?

You all are simply not smart to talk to, so I am done with this conversation. thanks

Oh please want me to ship a tape to you. Go to Chruch..

A nun in the Vatican also prayed to JP2 after he died. She had a terrible problem with her Parkinson, and then she prayed next day it was gone. She had it for such a long time, and it went away.

I believe we should take that as a "no".

Oh please want me to ship a tape to you. Go to Chruch..

A nun in the Vatican also prayed to JP2 after he died. She had a terrible problem with her Parkinson, and then she prayed next day it was gone. She had it for such a long time, and it went away.

Source.

As well, for such a great Catholic, might I ask what the Vatican's stance on evolution is? It's not exactly "creationism-ho!" you seem to be spouting.

Oh, someone debunks what you say, or asks for you to prove your claims, and you claim them not to be smart, and end the (pathetic)debate.

Typical looney religionist.

You all are simply not smart to talk to, so I am done with this conversation. thanks

Oh, someone debunks what you say, or asks for you to prove your claims, and you claim them not to be smart, and end the (pathetic)debate.

There's no reason to assume that it was left out. There's no reason to assume that the Romans would change their practices for one man, even one who claimed to be the Messiah. They had been crucifying claimants to that position for years. Also, all those tortures were often applied to anyone who was crucfied. The whole purpose of a crucifixion was to humiliate the person being crucified. Nothing that was written to have happened to him was out of the ordinary. Why should we assume that one detail, that wasn't even mentioned, was?considering how many 'Literalists' there are out there, as well as how many ready to prove the Bible wrong, there is one fact that people forget. no matter how traumatic an event is, no matter how important, every witness will recount a different tale. add to that things that are lost in translation/political changes and what not, the details get muddled. which is why to me, the Bible isn't to be taken literally, but it's the stories and the lessions behind the words that are important.

it's not important that God created the world in six days, but that God created the world. Evolution isn't mentioned but so was the Dinosaurs. That doesn't prove God didn't have anything to do with it, but it does prove that Evolution happened. to those watching the crucifixion, maybe the exact position of the nails and/or ropes wasn't important, but the fact that he was crucified was. when someone says they saw a criminal excecuted by firing squad, does the fact that they didn't say exactly how many shots hit and where exactly on the body the wounds were doesn't make what they saw invalid?

are you going to complain that a report of someone dying of leathal injection wasn't complete because the exact measurements of each chemical used and the exact second wasn't reported?

you can't prove that both ropes and nails weren't used, just like I can't prove they were. but the posibility is there.

Oh please want me to ship a tape to you. Go to Chruch.. well, you can post it on Youtube and post the url.

Huh. Could've sworn it happened before. Been awhile since I read that part of the Gospel. the peircing was done to prove he died. otherwise, his legs would've been broken.

You all are simply not smart to talk to, so I am done with this conversation. thanksso says one who cannot provide even scriptural backing to his claims...

bye!

...
Since you were kind enough to entice me to join this happy little argument, I figured I'd primarily address my question to you, but of course, anyone is free to attempt an answer.

Can you please explain to me how sexual reproduction spontaneously evolved?

Sex organs are completely useless without their counterparts from the other sex, and if anything, a sex drive that doesn't lead to reproduction is a burden to an organism and would likely have been lost to natural selection. So in order for sexual reproduction to have originated, 2 completely different, highly complex organ systems must have spontaneously evolved at the same time and in the same place. And this evolution must have taken place on the same species and have been so precise as to make the 2 organ systems compatible with each other. And that's before we even start considering how these organisms could have figured out how to use these organs. How does random genetic mutation account for all of this?

It's really a shame. We had a very lengthy and -- this is the key -- very respectful debate about evolution vs intelligent design on the old Liberalia forums. It's too bad it was all lost in the "revolution" that recently took place.

How does random genetic mutation account for all of this?

Counterquestion: how does your own alternative hypothesis explain it better than the competition ? Disproving evolution does after all not make creationism right.

*firmly believes the great god Atum autofellated himself and created everything as a sideeffect*
Which is not even a mockreligion, but a real belief held by people for several millenia.

Actually, the scientific method is agnostic. It cannot answer questions about the existence or non-existence of the divine. Thus, it relies on no assumptions about said existence/non-existence. Science doesn't have to reject supernatural explanations (nor does it accept them) - it does nothing with them at all, as science cannot be used in the supernatural realm. The supernatural is irrelevant in scientific examination.

That is true, but I think that's more of an explanation saying science itself- not the method (bear in mind I'm differentiating the two concepts)- is agnostic. If the method seeks solely natural explanations then by definition it cannot seek a supernatural explanation- thus making the method atheistic. If the scientific method were agnostic, then it would "open the door" to a supernatural explanation and it cannot do that.

Now, this doesn't mean that science itself *has* to be atheistic- science can accept supernatural reasonings as a philosophy, because there's nothing that says the natural world and the supernatural world are not and can not be connected. However, since the method was designed to apply only to the natural world it is atheistic because the method cannot accept a supernatural explanation and can only accept natural answers.

Let me say it again. Creationism is philosophy. It isn't science, in the sense that creation can be tested.

Thank you.

Now keep your stories out of our labs and classrooms, and we'll all be happy.

Considering - this:

... red blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils...


...which even the most basic research reveals to be entirely untrue, this:


...So when I checked out the data for myself, I became very disappointed with the theory...

...seems like it is worth about the paper it is written on.

You most certainly were under an obligation to acknowledge the evolutionnews link. I thought you had an academic background?Perhaps "his" "academic background" is all the attention he got from the varying staff attending his upbringing, making sure he didn't fall off the stool in the corner, nor tip off his conical hat.
Expertise of a sort?

Yes, I did cut and past from that ID site. I probably would not have found that article except that I came across it there. Even so, the only thing that came from the site was the 'emphasis added'. Everything else actually came from the original article to which they were referring, including the reference to the article. That means I was under no obligation to paste the 'evolutionnews' link. If you want to find which bit was emboldened, you can read the link yourself, since you have so kindly posted it here.


You most certainly were under an obligation to acknowledge the evolutionnews link. I thought you had an academic background?
You should have cited the source you actually used. Otherwise you could end up taking the blame for an error someone else has made.


They appeared to be satisfied with an 'evolutiondidit' explanation, and left it at that.

No, it looks to me as if they're studying it. You know - studying. As opposed to skim-reading it in the hope of finding something which will fit in with their religious views.

Thank you.

Now keep your stories out of our labs and classrooms, and we'll all be happy.

Quite so. Creationism doesn't belong in science class, any more than The Land of Make-Believe belongs in geography class.

Quite so. Creationism doesn't belong in science class, any more than The Land of Make-Believe belongs in geography class.Creationism belongs nowhere. It is only the crap in some small minds.

A note, because it bears mentioning:

I like to touch upon the history of the debate. Uniformitarianism and Evolution have existed as scientific concepts since the 19th century, but Creationism (or, more specifically, "Young Earth Creationism") has only entered public consciouness since the 1910s with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity, but it didn't really gain a lot of steam until 1961, when Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood. Seven years later, the "Institute for Creation Research" was established. So any "anti-Creationist bias" isn't much older than 100 years, and the Old Earth idea is much older than that (and thus cannot be constructed because of a bias, which I doubt is even considered since I don't believe most scientists pay attention to Creationists anyway).

Two reasons I suspect. 1 is that we're living in the age of science and often times it's an age that we can't understand. Scientists have become the new Moses, decending from on high bearing the tablets with the latest pronoucements and we're left with something we don't understand, but we're supposed to follow (i.e. Science says eatting eggs is bad, so I won't have my normal plate of scambled. Damned if I know why, but the men in the white coats told me so). This leads to an asumption that science can solve every problem and find everything (We can put a man on the Moon so we should be able to x) and what bigger problem or question is the one of if God(s/esses/FSM) exists and the meaning of life?

2. Because of the authority of the above, those folks who cling to religion but who are not secure in their faith want science to either prove their faith to them (See? See? I was RIGHT! Science says so) or to knock science down to gain their authority for themselves (See? See? I PROVED science wrong! So listen to me!).

Carl Saggen was right, we're living in an age of wonders, but one most of us don't have the foggest clue about how it works or why. That scares me.

Post of the thread. I'd have to agree whole-heartedly- and I think this has a lot to do with misunderstandings of science as opposed to anything intrinsically wrong with science itself. Because science is so complex and diverse, the most a lot of people will ever get is simply a "gist" of a theory or a finding and misinterpret it, failing to really research what it is they're reading about (and seeing, once they are finished reading, of how faulty their own logic is). SARS and West Nile are good examples of this- these diseases, poorly understood by the general public, whip mass hysteria simply because they're poorly understood and once people *do* understand them, it's really not a lot to worry about (both SARS and West Nile have odds of death that are literally one in a million and most West Nile infections don't result in anything happening). Now, the media played a part in both diseases' public perceptions, but it is fueled by scientific misconceptions- once people hear "virus" they get scared, but once they actually read about the virus (like I did), they'll realize it's not a lot to get worked up on.

As far as religiosity goes- it ties into the previous paragraph in that this too is fueled by misconceptions. Since we're a largely secular society, we've come to look to science to provide our explanations when it can't- science was designed for natural causes, not for things like fate, yet that question still remains. There will also be those who will take the word of any scientist as "fact" without reading up that much about it, because of this reliance we have on science, and that fuels further misconceptions. Science can thus appear as a "belief system" simply because of our reliance on it, but the idea it is "to be believed" is fabricated by those who don't understand science- it's supposed to provide a natural explanation (which is more complex than it may be understood)- whether or not one wants to take it is up to them.

(snip)

This won't be enough- you can't say that because there's one case where Evolution fails that the entire theory fails. It's like saying Inter Milan's 2006-07 Serie A soccer season was a failure because they lost one game to Roma on April 18, never mind that Inter won 30 games and tied the other seven. A single flaw or even a single group of flaws isn't going to be enough to invalidate an entire theory- you've got to show that much of the theory is flawed (and that these flaws wreck the very foundations of the theory) before declaring it "invalid"; and Evolution just has too much evidence. This experiment could be used as a springboard for other experiments that could ultimately disprove the Theory of Evolution, but in order to cast any reasonable kind of doubt on Evolution there'd have to be a mountain of evidence that seriously contests its major points (and not just a small, minor segment of it) and while it's true that evidence is possible, it'll take a lot to shake the scientific consensus on Evolution.

Now, before I get jumped on and I get replies that state "Evolution already has a lot of flaws", frankly, I don't see that. I see a link to a single study or a page detailing someone's objections to a particular part of the theory and that's not enough (plus a lot of those objections can still be explained within Evolution, which still has a lot of natural evidence). I want to see someone provide a completely new model that shows the world isn't as old as scientifically claimed and how our organisms got to where they are today, taking into account all the science we know already (I have yet to see empirical proof of a 6,000-year-old Earth- much of the basis of this argument seems to "stretch" the data to make it fit, while the 4.6 billion year age was accounted for by the tests (and not before those tests)). Once I see a completely new theory constructed by the scientific method (i.e., natural explanations) then I'll believe there's an alternate theory.

Stars. Stars. Stars. Bright shiny stars. Sometimes I wish I could capture the light of a galaxy thirteen billion lightyears away and store it in a big oak box with beautiful brass hinges. I would then take that box and beat young earth creationists senseless with it. :)

Can you please explain to me how sexual reproduction spontaneously evolved?

Sex organs are completely useless without their counterparts from the other sex, and if anything, a sex drive that doesn't lead to reproduction is a burden to an organism and would likely have been lost to natural selection. So in order for sexual reproduction to have originated, 2 completely different, highly complex organ systems must have spontaneously evolved at the same time and in the same place.

See, this is where you make your most fundamental misunderstanding. There's no "spontaneous" in evolution. And then you make another one, which is that sexual reproduction evolved in multicellular organisms. It didn't. It evolved in single-celled organisms, and was passed on to multicellular organisms. As for how, well, a brief Google search turned up not one, not two, but three separate explanations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_Sexual_Reproduction) Take your pick.

Stars. Stars. Stars. Bright shiny stars. Sometimes I wish I could capture the light of a galaxy thirteen billion lightyears away and store it in a big oak box with beautiful brass hinges. I would then take that box and beat young earth creationists senseless with it. :)in a young earth creationist universe there are no stars or galaxies thirteen billion lightyears away. or at least none that we could observe.

Here's a nice little overview of what YEC's claim is "evidence":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

It boils down to this:

"No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red bloodcells have been hypothesized on the basis of Heme, a kind of iron produced biologically. [Crenshaw 2001]"

Notice all the intillectual (dis)honesty that is the highlight of YEC "science".

Woah, back up. Let's look at what has been found.

Schweitzer, Mary Higby, John R. Horner 1999 Intrasvascular microstructures in trabecular bone tissues of Tyrannosaurus rex, Annales de Paléontologie Volume 85, Issue 3, July-September , pg.179-192.

''Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.''

OK, so *functional* red blood cells have not been found. Nor would anyone expect that after even a week, let alone 30 million years. However, what they did find was structures that are possibly the remnants of red blood cells. The presence of organic products that are also found in hemoglobin decomposition was also present, supporting this possibility.

True, some people like Carl Wieland (a creationist) have jumped the gun a little by claiming that red blood cells were found. In his articles, he should have been a lot more careful with his assessments of the discoveries.

Furthermore:
''Although they are not consistent with pyrite framboids, they may indeed be geological in origin, derived from some process as yet undefined; they may have their origin as colonies of iron-concentrating bacteria or fungal spores, or they may be the result of cellular debris, which clumped upon death, became desiccated, and then through diagenetic processes such as anion exchange or others not yet elucidated, became complexed with other, secondary degradation products. [Schweitzer and Horner (1999: 189)]''

Again, here is a reference to 'some process as yet undefined'. In other words, they have trouble believing that organic molecules and structures from blood and bone could be so well preserved for 30 million years, but are willing to speculate on the possibility of undiscovered processes. Probably because they are not yet ready to consider that the fossil is not so old. And once again, that is an 'evolutiondidit' type of explanation.

As to the question of whether it really is the decomposed remains of blood:

''So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues".''
Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter,1997 The Real Jurassic Park, Earth, June pp. 55-57.

They are obviously more cautious than the creationists, probably with good reason. The creationists want to the blood to be there. The evolutionists would much rather play it down. It's easy to see how human motivations are colouring the perspectives.

The article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html spends a lot of time over how the creationists have been misquoting and how they then tend to quote each other, leading to totally different conclusions. It is right of them to criticise the creationists for this. They should have been more careful. Even so, things like this happen on the other side of the fence too. Consider the Mitochondrial Eve story for the bumbles and fumbling made by the supporters of evolution. Wherever you have humans that are highly motivated, this sort of thing will happen, and we ought to watch out of it.

However, at the end of the day, decomposition products of blood and bone have probably been found (in the words of the researchers) in a dinosaur fossil, and that was certainly not expected if the fossil is 30 million years ago. I have presented this, not as strong evidence for a young earth, but as an example of how often the 'evolutiondidit' explanation is invoked.

*snip*

So when scientists say they can not confidantly say it's one thing or the other, what they're really saying is "evolutiondidit!!"?

Evidence of tissues /= evidence of "just recenlty dying" Try again.

I would say that it doesn't support a 30 million year estimation. 30 million years is a very long time.





So then you make claims of "most people beleive" based off of one article. Gotcha.

So you are saying that you disagree with the people who wrote the article. There doesn't seem to be too many other articles about multiple coding genes, and how they evolved, so how would we know what anyone else is thinking? We only have that article to go by. If you disagree, it is either because you know something more than they do, or because you are simply a faithful believer.





ANd what are my "suspicions"?


I don't know exactly. But what I said was that any of your suspicions that cannot be tested are not science. Do you have a hard time accepting that?




Fine play semantics. Show that "much" of it is wrong then.


I didn't say much of it was wrong. I said that much of it is probably wrong. That means I would not put any money on it in a race. The reason that I put the word 'probably' there is because I'm not in a position to test it for myself.


You have admitted you want to add untestable concepts into the scientific "theory". If you want to be disingenuous enough to try and claim that isn't just making crap up to justify supernatural beleifs, go ahead.

Not really. Rather, a better way would be to consider all of the storys about the origins as not 'scientific', but scenarios from which we can generate predictions that can be tested. That's how science works. The idea that humans and apes share the same ancestor is actually not scientific. It cannot be tested. However, such a scenario allows one to make predictions that can be tested, the results of which can be used to infer the validity of the scenario.


By the way, a birds nest can be observed being built and lived in by a bird. Windows have been observed being made, broken, and repaired. Once again, a designer has been observed.

Actually, we don't need to observe a nest being built before we recognise that it is a nest. We simply can see that it cannot be accounted for by natural forces that we know about (non-random) and that it fulfils a purpose (specificity). Hence, even a small kid who has never seen a bird build a nest can still find one.

Seems creationist doesen't accept ANY debate on their convintions. No half way or "ok is not so clear indeed"

Trilby63;12803393']So when scientists say they can not confidantly say it's one thing or the other, what they're really saying is "evolutiondidit!!"?

It depends on the situation. It is one matter to be inconfident about how a thing happened, but it is quite another to know that there is no adequate explanation and yet still believe that evolution can account for it. To avoid their 'evolutiondidit' problem, they would need to be prepared to question whether evolution really did do it. I don't see that in any of their papers and comments, so I conclude that they are not even thinking that evolution might be inadequate, or not the right explanation. So they norrowtheir thinking down to 'how can this be explained in terms of evolution', rather than 'how can this be explained'.

Seems creationist doesen't accept ANY debate on their convintions. No half way or "ok is not so clear indeed"

Some creationists are like that, sure. Perhaps the militant noncompromising ones. But you have to see that there are plenty of atheists who are also just as militant and noncompromising. If you say that it is far better to be more careful and considerate with the evidence, then I would totally agree with you.

But you have to see that there are plenty of atheists who are also just as militant and noncompromising.

Right.

If you say that it is far better to be more careful and considerate with the evidence, then I would totally agree with you.

Yes it is :p

... I've voted for evolution.

It depends on the situation. It is one matter to be inconfident about how a thing happened, but it is quite another to know that there is no adequate explanation and yet still believe that evolution can account for it. To avoid their 'evolutiondidit' problem, they would need to be prepared to question whether evolution really did do it. I don't see that in any of their papers and comments, so I conclude that they are not even thinking that evolution might be inadequate, or not the right explanation. So they norrowtheir thinking down to 'how can this be explained in terms of evolution', rather than 'how can this be explained'.

Surely, if it were found to be blood in the bone then the issue would be with that whole dating thing, right?

in a young earth creationist universe there are no stars or galaxies thirteen billion lightyears away. or at least none that we could observe.

Sounds ghastly. :p

I'm glad I don't live in one of those universes.

Sounds ghastly. :p

I'm glad I don't live in one of those universes.

you don't?!??

I just realized something, what Bruarong is giving us is the Dragon in the Garage.

For those of you who don't know this (Carl Sagan invented it) it runs as thus:

Someone tells you that they have a real live dragon in his garage. Eager to see it, you race over to his house where he proudly points and says, "Behold the dragon!" The problem being that you cannot see this dragon.

"That's because it's an invisible dragon, but it's there," he replies. Well, how about spreading fine particles on the floor to track the dragon's movements?

"The dragon floats."

What about using equipment to detect the heat given off by a fire breathing dragon?

"The dragon gives off no heat."

What about using a laser network to capture movement when the dragon blocks it?

"The dragon is insubstantial."

And so on, with every test you propose, the man calmly states that it wouldn't work due to X reason. A scientist would sadly conclude that even if there WAS a dragon there, since you can't see it or test it, or find any evidence for it, it might as well not be there.

Bruarong is proposing that we have to accept the idea that the dragon is there, even though we have no evidence, tests, or proof at all.

Interesting analogy, but not really suited to what I am proposing at all.

Firstly, I'm not asking anyone to believe in my 'dragon' (God, I suppose). Nor am I asking anyone to test whether the dragon is there. It's about testing a prediction based on a hypothetical scenario.

Nor am I trying to use science to prove that the dragon exists. My proposal is simply to show that science is possible, regardless of whether you are a naturalist or a creationist. All you need to do is to find testible ideas that are derived from either scenario.

In the case of the dragon analogy, the scientist must conclude that there is no way to test for the dragon. I aggree with that. Particularly if the dragon is insubstantial. However, if someone makes the claim that the dragon created something that is substantial, then this claim can be indirectly examined by thinking up predictions based on this claim and testing the substantial 'something' to see if the data supports such a claim.

Trilby63;12803425']Surely, if it were found to be blood in the bone then the issue would be with that whole dating thing, right?

IF there was blood, then mostly likely, yes, since it would be ludicrous to think that blood could last 30 million years. However, it isn't blood. It is something that looks like the decomposed remains of blood.

If they had some way of proving that it really was the decomposed remains of blood, even then I personally would find it hard to accept that it had been preserved so well for so long. However, I couldn't rule that possibility out, since there are all sorts of processes that have yet to be discovered and could have contributed to a sort of 'freezing' of the decomposition process.

At the same time, I wouldn't be putting my money on the 'yet to be discovered' process.

you don't?!??

Of course not. How can I? There ARE(or at least there were 13 billion years ago) galaxies 13 billion lightyears away. That kind of refutes the possibility of there not being any. ;)

A note, because it bears mentioning:

I like to touch upon the history of the debate. Uniformitarianism and Evolution have existed as scientific concepts since the 19th century, but Creationism (or, more specifically, "Young Earth Creationism") has only entered public consciouness since the 1910s with the rise of fundamentalist Christianity, but it didn't really gain a lot of steam until 1961, when Henry Morris and John C. Whitcomb published The Genesis Flood. Seven years later, the "Institute for Creation Research" was established. So any "anti-Creationist bias" isn't much older than 100 years, and the Old Earth idea is much older than that (and thus cannot be constructed because of a bias, which I doubt is even considered since I don't believe most scientists pay attention to Creationists anyway).

But the rise of science happened before evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism. The vast majority of these people, such as Newton and Pasteur, were chaps who thought that the universe was created by a rational God and thus was a rational place, and therefore was favourable to a rational investigation. What would you call these chaps? Creationists? I would say so. Sure, you can follow the modern Creationist movement from chaps like Morris and Whitcomb, but this was pretty much a reaction to what they felt was aggressive atheistic doctrines masquerading as science. In that sense, the modern movement contrasted to the older Creationists. Nevertheless, science was a fully active process before evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism, demonstrating its independence from such concepts.



Post of the thread. I'd have to agree whole-heartedly- and I think this has a lot to do with misunderstandings of science as opposed to anything intrinsically wrong with science itself. Because science is so complex and diverse, the most a lot of people will ever get is simply a "gist" of a theory or a finding and misinterpret it, failing to really research what it is they're reading about (and seeing, once they are finished reading, of how faulty their own logic is). SARS and West Nile are good examples of this- these diseases, poorly understood by the general public, whip mass hysteria simply because they're poorly understood and once people *do* understand them, it's really not a lot to worry about (both SARS and West Nile have odds of death that are literally one in a million and most West Nile infections don't result in anything happening). Now, the media played a part in both diseases' public perceptions, but it is fueled by scientific misconceptions- once people hear "virus" they get scared, but once they actually read about the virus (like I did), they'll realize it's not a lot to get worked up on.

The assumption that evolutionary theory and naturalism are under attack simply by people who are insecure in their faith is very much an inaccurate generalisation. Sure, there are lots of people who are insecure in their beliefs, regardless of what their beliefs are, atheists included. But to assume that the attacks come only from religious poeple suffering from insecurities is about as unfounded a claim that everyone opposed to me on this forum is insecure about their belief in evolutionary theory.

I have pointed out several times that my belief in God does not rule out uniformitarian assumptions, nor the theory of evolution. If I criticise the assumptions, it is because I consider them inadequate, not because they threaten my concept of God. They don't satisfy my scientific skepticism. I realize that my criticisms don't satisfy many people either. But that just tells me that I should refrain from gross generalisations that I can't verify.

I don't claim that all religious people who accept evolutionary theory are doing so to avoid criticism, even though there are bound to be some of those. I don't claim that all atheists believe in evolutionary theory because it removes a need for God as a cause, even though there are bound to be some of those too. Rather, I allow for honest atheists who don't let their motivations blind them. But you won't allow for religious people who honestly think that evolution is not scientific. Why not?


As far as religiosity goes- it ties into the previous paragraph in that this too is fueled by misconceptions. Since we're a largely secular society, we've come to look to science to provide our explanations when it can't- science was designed for natural causes, not for things like fate, yet that question still remains. There will also be those who will take the word of any scientist as "fact" without reading up that much about it, because of this reliance we have on science, and that fuels further misconceptions. Science can thus appear as a "belief system" simply because of our reliance on it, but the idea it is "to be believed" is fabricated by those who don't understand science- it's supposed to provide a natural explanation (which is more complex than it may be understood)- whether or not one wants to take it is up to them.


Whenever a scientist constructs notions about the origins, since we have no way to test those notions directly, we are left with the option of believing him/her or not believing. In fact, you have probably never been to Antartica. That means you have never seen it for youself. But I suppose you don't have any trouble believing that it is there. The point is that you have to choose between belief and non-belief unless you want to test it for yourself.

The whole point of this debate is whether or not we find the theory of evolution believable, and whether we believe it or not. And that has a lot to do with how much confidence we have in the experts, and their ability to construct realistic scenarios about the origins. Thus, you are right. Science can appear as a 'belief system'. That means that things like ancient scenarios of origins are constructed and either believed, or not believed. That means that they should not actually be considered science, because they are not testible.

The idea that science can only produce naturalistic explanations is an assertion from naturalistic philosophy. Science actually doesn't produce any explanations. People do that, based on their philosophical governing assumptions. The 'rule' that people are only allowed to use naturalistic governing assumptions for their 'scientific' explanations was invented by the proponents of naturalism, naturally.



This won't be enough- you can't say that because there's one case where Evolution fails that the entire theory fails. It's like saying Inter Milan's 2006-07 Serie A soccer season was a failure because they lost one game to Roma on April 18, never mind that Inter won 30 games and tied the other seven. A single flaw or even a single group of flaws isn't going to be enough to invalidate an entire theory- you've got to show that much of the theory is flawed (and that these flaws wreck the very foundations of the theory) before declaring it "invalid"; and Evolution just has too much evidence. This experiment could be used as a springboard for other experiments that could ultimately disprove the Theory of Evolution, but in order to cast any reasonable kind of doubt on Evolution there'd have to be a mountain of evidence that seriously contests its major points (and not just a small, minor segment of it) and while it's true that evidence is possible, it'll take a lot to shake the scientific consensus on Evolution.


The problem with that is that what constitutes evidence depends a great deal on your governing assumptions. What a creationist calls a mountain of evidence, the naturalist will discard as arguments and speculations based on non-scientific belief in a creator. What the naturalist considers as a mountain of evidence, the creationist discard as arguments and speculation committed to non-scientific naturalistic assumptions.


Now, before I get jumped on and I get replies that state "Evolution already has a lot of flaws", frankly, I don't see that. I see a link to a single study or a page detailing someone's objections to a particular part of the theory and that's not enough (plus a lot of those objections can still be explained within Evolution, which still has a lot of natural evidence). I want to see someone provide a completely new model that shows the world isn't as old as scientifically claimed and how our organisms got to where they are today, taking into account all the science we know already (I have yet to see empirical proof of a 6,000-year-old Earth- much of the basis of this argument seems to "stretch" the data to make it fit, while the 4.6 billion year age was accounted for by the tests (and not before those tests)). Once I see a completely new theory constructed by the scientific method (i.e., natural explanations) then I'll believe there's an alternate theory.

The flaws are there in the evolutionary theory. They tend to get filled in with speculation. Classic example: The fossil record does not show evolution in progress. Of all the fossils that we have recovered, the vast majority appear to belong to species showing little or no variation over great periods of time, and appearing suddenly in the strata. Hmmm. Not what the supporters of evolution wanted. So they come up with two ideas to account for this. Firstly, fossilization is extremely rare. That means each fossil is only a snapshot, representing the most abundant populations. That explanation isn't testible, but it is easily believable. A safe explanation that cannot be falsified.

Secondly, evolution developed through punctuated equilibrium. That means that the reason why we don't find too many missing links between a lizard and a bird is because that particular part of evolution proceeded in a rather quick jump. So goes the speculation. Evidence for punctuated equilibrium is nil, despite it being a major explanation supporting evolutionary theory. Nor do we know any process that could account for such a jump. Another safe explanation that cannot be falsified. Nevertheless, so armed with their explanations, supporters of evolutionary theory can claim that the fossil record supports evolution. That's because, based on their explanations, we would only expect to see what we do see: the vast majority of fossils appearing to belong to species showing little or no variation over great periods of time, and appearing suddenly in the strata.

Of course not. How can I? There ARE(or at least there were 13 billion years ago) galaxies 13 billion lightyears away. That kind of refutes the possibility of there not being any. ;)

This you believe?

This you believe?

As much as I believe anything. The existence of hundreds of millions of galaxies at distances that place them billions of years in the past is as safe a fact as my own. *nod*

Interesting analogy, but not really suited to what I am proposing at all.

Firstly, I'm not asking anyone to believe in my 'dragon' (God, I suppose). Nor am I asking anyone to test whether the dragon is there. It's about testing a prediction based on a hypothetical scenario.

Nor am I trying to use science to prove that the dragon exists. My proposal is simply to show that science is possible, regardless of whether you are a naturalist or a creationist. All you need to do is to find testible ideas that are derived from either scenario.

In the case of the dragon analogy, the scientist must conclude that there is no way to test for the dragon. I aggree with that. Particularly if the dragon is insubstantial. However, if someone makes the claim that the dragon created something that is substantial, then this claim can be indirectly examined by thinking up predictions based on this claim and testing the substantial 'something' to see if the data supports such a claim.
No, that's exactly what you are doing. You are saying that science should take into account creationist viewpoints, even though we cannot test them. You're not the man saying there is a dragon, but you're attempting to state that we must take said man seriously even though we can never show/find/test the dragon.

IF there was blood, then mostly likely, yes, since it would be ludicrous to think that blood could last 30 million years. However, it isn't blood. It is something that looks like the decomposed remains of blood.

If they had some way of proving that it really was the decomposed remains of blood, even then I personally would find it hard to accept that it had been preserved so well for so long. However, I couldn't rule that possibility out, since there are all sorts of processes that have yet to be discovered and could have contributed to a sort of 'freezing' of the decomposition process.

At the same time, I wouldn't be putting my money on the 'yet to be discovered' process.

But you put your money on something that has no evidence whatsoever and state we should take it into account as well.

I would say that it doesn't support a 30 million year estimation. 30 million years is a very long time.

So show evidence supporting your view. I'll wait.

So you are saying that you disagree with the people who wrote the article. There doesn't seem to be too many other articles about multiple coding genes, and how they evolved, so how would we know what anyone else is thinking? We only have that article to go by. If you disagree, it is either because you know something more than they do, or because you are simply a faithful believer.

Nice red herring. You quote one article out of context then claim "most people believe". You then claimed that they stopped their research and said "evolutiondidit" of which you've also shown no evidence.

I didn't say much of it was wrong. I said that much of it is probably wrong. That means I would not put any money on it in a race. The reason that I put the word 'probably' there is because I'm not in a position to test it for myself.

So you deny the current evidence for an unsupported myth which you want added to the equation.

Not really. Rather, a better way would be to consider all of the storys about the origins as not 'scientific', but scenarios from which we can generate predictions that can be tested. That's how science works. The idea that humans and apes share the same ancestor is actually not scientific. It cannot be tested. However, such a scenario allows one to make predictions that can be tested, the results of which can be used to infer the validity of the scenario.

Oh, BS. DNA etc. has been tested and shows links. That's been posted many times and you know it. If you have something opposing that then show it. Otherwise you've once again shown yourself to be as intellectually honest as the ICR folks.


Actually, we don't need to observe a nest being built before we recognise that it is a nest. We simply can see that it cannot be accounted for by natural forces that we know about (non-random) and that it fulfils a purpose (specificity). Hence, even a small kid who has never seen a bird build a nest can still find one.

And how does that "small kid" know it's a bird's nest? Oh, right, because he's been taughtand shown that it's been observed that birds build nests. There are birds.

You're really reaching for this one.

No, that's exactly what you are doing. You are saying that science should take into account creationist viewpoints, even though we cannot test them. You're not the man saying there is a dragon, but you're attempting to state that we must take said man seriously even though we can never show/find/test the dragon.

Notice how B keeps claiming things "aren't testable" when they have been?

or this outright lie:

"The fossil record does not show evolution in progress."

Here B, do some reading. You may want to note that there's actually evidence involved in this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

You may claim it's just "scientific scepticism". However you've shown it's more along the lines of "blinders" especially since you don't follow the scientific method.

That's what comes from reading ID websites and taking them as an authority.

This you believe?

Look out LG, I think you may actually have found someone who's disputing the existence of galaxies.

Hopefully this is just a feeble bit of attention-seeking trollishness, and not a genuine tinfoil hat case.

See, this is where you make your most fundamental misunderstanding. There's no "spontaneous" in evolution. And then you make another one, which is that sexual reproduction evolved in multicellular organisms. It didn't. It evolved in single-celled organisms, and was passed on to multicellular organisms. As for how, well, a brief Google search turned up not one, not two, but three separate explanations. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_sex#Origin_of_Sexual_Reproduction) Take your pick.
Ok, that does technically explain the origin of sexual reproduction. But I'm talking about sexual reproduction as in males and females of a species copulating. Your source postulates the origin of sex as genetic replication, parastism, and cannibalism; and while these are perfectly reasonable explanations for sexual reporduction in simple organisms, they can not explain sexual reproduction in complex organisms -- specifically the development of sex organs.

Counterquestion: how does your own alternative hypothesis explain it better than the competition ? Disproving evolution does after all not make creationism right.

I'll apologize for not clarifying my views. I'm not a creationist. I'm more of a proponent of intelligent design. To me, the theory of evolution is a perfectly coherent theory with the exception of the randomness that guides it. Therefore, if I can show that random chance could not have produced certain results, it follows that an intelligence probably did.

[FONT="Georgia"]I'll apologize for not clarifying my views. I'm not a creationist. I'm more of a proponent of intelligent design. To me, the theory of evolution is a perfectly coherent theory with the exception of the randomness that guides it. Therefore, if I can show that random chance could not have produced certain results, it follows that an intelligence probably did.

Except that the argument that something is impossible because it is highly improbably is silly at best.

The probably that a particular arrangement of cards in a deck of 52 cards would have that particular arrangement is something close to 1/52!, or 1/52 +1/51+1/50etc. Calculating this out (yes, I actually calculated this out) is something along the lines of: 1/(8.06*10^67) or 1 in 8.06*10^67. Are you suggesting that, because of this extremely low probability of getting this particular arrangement of cards, the cards HAD to be arranged intelligently? When in fact the cards can quite easily be shown to be randomly assigned in that order following laws of probability? Is that really what you're trying to say?

*Pokes thread and leaves.*

I'll apologize for not clarifying my views. I'm not a creationist. I'm more of a proponent of intelligent design. To me, the theory of evolution is a perfectly coherent theory with the exception of the randomness that guides it. Therefore, if I can show that random chance could not have produced certain results, it follows that an intelligence probably did.

What mechanism do you propose for this 'intelligence'? How does it affect the genome?

What mechanism do you propose for this 'intelligence'? How does it affect the genome?

Clearly we are guided by a maniac with a hammer. :)

Look out LG, I think you may actually have found someone who's disputing the existence of galaxies.

Hopefully this is just a feeble bit of attention-seeking trollishness, and not a genuine tinfoil hat case.

Hopefully. hard to argue with something one can see with a strong pair of binoculars on a reasonably dark night. :p

Clearly we are guided by a maniac with a hammer. :)

Please don't tell me you're the Intelligent Designer. :p

Hopefully. hard to argue with something one can see with a strong pair of binoculars on a reasonably dark night. :p

Were your binoculars constructed using Uniformitarian assumptions?

Please don't tell me you're the Intelligent Designer. :p

No. Humanity is nutty, but it's not my brand of nutty.

I am not a maniac with a hammer. I'm a wacko with a rubber mallet. :)

That is true, but I think that's more of an explanation saying science itself- not the method (bear in mind I'm differentiating the two concepts)- is agnostic. If the method seeks solely natural explanations then by definition it cannot seek a supernatural explanation- thus making the method atheistic. If the scientific method were agnostic, then it would "open the door" to a supernatural explanation and it cannot do that.

Now, this doesn't mean that science itself *has* to be atheistic- science can accept supernatural reasonings as a philosophy, because there's nothing that says the natural world and the supernatural world are not and can not be connected. However, since the method was designed to apply only to the natural world it is atheistic because the method cannot accept a supernatural explanation and can only accept natural answers.
It can be both agnostic and atheistic; but I question whether limiting oneself to the natural defines "atheistic," and whether doubting the natural defines "agnostic," as you seem to imply.

The scientifid method was not "designed to apply only to the natural world," rather it is a result of examination of the natural world.

Were your binoculars constructed using Uniformitarian assumptions?

No. With chinese slave labor. *nod*

Please don't tell me you're the Intelligent Designer. :p

Actually, he is. We all are.

No. With chinese slave labor. *nod*

You owe me a new keyboard. :D

Look out LG, I think you may actually have found someone who's disputing the existence of galaxies.

Hopefully this is just a feeble bit of attention-seeking trollishness, and not a genuine tinfoil hat case.

Oh no, not their existence. Their nature.

Creationism belongs nowhere. It is only the crap in some small minds.

wrong. Creationism belongs in Theology.

You owe me a new keyboard. :D

Good luck in trying to collect... LG ows me three keyboards, a mouse, and a monitor. :p

Oh no, not their existence. Their nature.

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you think galaxies are?

Awww, I missed playing with the crazy religionist. :(

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you think galaxies are?

Clearly, the remnants of Atum's ejaculate material. You should know this!

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you think galaxies are?

A more appropriate question would be, what does it mean to know something is a galaxy?

A thing's "nature" is determined by us.

A more appropriate question would be, what does it mean to know something is a galaxy?

A thing's "nature" is determined by us.

Well, no. We define a galaxy by a particular set of criteria, and then record our observations of objects that fit this criteria. Even if we didn't know of them or label them, they would still be there, and they would still exist in that manner. We just wouldn't call them galaxies.

It's how we define pretty much everything we can observe. We define apples by a set of specific criteria:
It has to be the fruit of an apple tree, which we identify by a particular type of bark, leaf pattern, etc.
We define fruit a particular way
We define bark and leaf patterns a particular way
And this all wraps up into descriptions of the objects around us.

But even if we didn't define apples by that criteria, they would still fit that criteria, and still be what they are.

A more appropriate question would be, what does it mean to know something is a galaxy?

A thing's "nature" is determined by us.

It's nature is determined by us? Eh, not really. It's name might be, but a galaxy by any other name would shine as brightly.

wrong. Creationism belongs in Theology.

I'll go with that. It's good to be aware of peoples' views on life, the universe and everything.

Speaking of which...

Oh no, not their existence. Their nature.

Here's a crazy notion - why don't you say what you want to say? If you think the stars are holes in the roof, or alien spaceships in orbit, or the spirits of our ancestors looking down on us, then you should have the courage of your convictions and say so. Soon, before you are dismissed as a troll.

Add: Ah, you did. Serves me right for trying to type and cook at the same time.

OK, you want to make a virtue out of ignorance, and make out that the pursuit of knowledge is inherently wrong. Well, I guess you are entitled to your opinion. However, there is no point in trying to debate it with you since you are no doubt about to get rid of that computer. Seeing as it's an example of evil technology.

OK, I'll bite. What exactly do you think galaxies are?

Points of light in the sky. Nothing more, nothing less.

There isn't an answer to everything, except that we can't--ever--know.

People attribute too much to faith. Faith in science, faith in God, faith in humanity. There is nothing for us in space. Everything we can have is right here, and when we die, it's gone.

Galaxies are nothing more than fascinating lights in the night sky. Something to be experienced, not meant to be quantified, reduced to meaningless numbers and theological canon. There is no more to the stars than there is trying to catch the sound of silence.

Points of light in the sky. That's it.

Actually the whole order of created universe was created 6 seconds ago,... at the time of this post, it'll be the seventh second.

Oh yeah, implanted memories will make sure that you didn't notice.

Points of light in the sky. Nothing more, nothing less.

There isn't an answer to everything, except that we can't--ever--know.

People attribute too much to faith. Faith in science, faith in God, faith in humanity. There is nothing for us in space. Everything we can have is right here, and when we die, it's gone.

Galaxies are nothing more than fascinating lights in the night sky. Something to be experienced, not meant to be quantified, reduced to meaningless numbers and theological canon. There is no more to the stars than there is trying to catch the sound of silence.

Points of light in the sky. That's it.
So what's this then? I'll tell you what it isn't; it's not a point of light in the sky.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/SN1994D.jpg/600px-SN1994D.jpg

It's a supernova. In a different galaxy.

So what's this then? I'll tell you what it isn't; it's not a point of light in the sky.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/SN1994D.jpg/600px-SN1994D.jpg

It's a supernova. In a different galaxy.

Hard to think that's thousands of light years across, huh? Amazing.

And *technically* speaking, it's a bunch of little lights. Light produced by stars and such within the galaxy. But a technicality.

Points of light in the sky. Nothing more, nothing less.
So, by this reasoning, stars, galaxies and aeroplanes are all the same thing, yes?

There isn't an answer to everything, except that we can't--ever--know.
Maybe we can't, that doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

People attribute too much to faith. Faith in science, faith in God, faith in humanity. There is nothing for us in space. Everything we can have is right here, and when we die, it's gone.
We won't know that until we look, will we?

Galaxies are nothing more than fascinating lights in the night sky. Something to be experienced, not meant to be quantified, reduced to meaningless numbers and theological canon. There is no more to the stars than there is trying to catch the sound of silence.

Points of light in the sky. That's it.

You might be content to live in ignorance of the world around you and how it works, but that's not true for everyone. That's pretty much why science exists.

Points of light in the sky. Nothing more, nothing less.

There isn't an answer to everything, except that we can't--ever--know.

People attribute too much to faith. Faith in science, faith in God, faith in humanity. There is nothing for us in space. Everything we can have is right here, and when we die, it's gone.

Galaxies are nothing more than fascinating lights in the night sky. Something to be experienced, not meant to be quantified, reduced to meaningless numbers and theological canon. There is no more to the stars than there is trying to catch the sound of silence.

Points of light in the sky. That's it.

Ah I love funny attempts at deep philosophical thought

Ah I love funny attempts at deep philosophical thought

I think it's an attempt to reach transcendental nihilism.

Ah I love funny attempts at deep philosophical thought

I'm in two minds about whether to ask for his dealer's phone number. Either whatever he's on is really good, or he is just a lightweight.

So what's this then? I'll tell you what it isn't; it's not a point of light in the sky.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/SN1994D.jpg/600px-SN1994D.jpg

It's a supernova. In a different galaxy.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/55/Hourglass_Nebula.gif

I'm fairly sure that's not just a point of light either.

Supernova remnant that looks REALLY cool.

Hahaha!

I try to explain things all nice and shit, and you go off calling me a drug dealer and a fake attempt at deep philosophy. I'll tell you one thing, you all wouldn't know reality from a Disney movie. Heres the thing that you all need to get through you're skulls: you take this science shit on faith. You take God on faith. What is faith? false hope. That's it. One of these days you'll die, and none of this will matter. Science is death. God is dead. But then, so are we.

Yeah, I hate my fucking computer. It is a mindless waste of time and energy, as evidence by my hours on this damn site. Damn, I was born in the wrong generation. Fuck technology. Fuck the stars. Who gives a shit? Seriously, why the hell does it matter how far away a damn point of light is in the sky?I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. It doesn't matter if we were created out of Saturn's nostrils or if we evolved from troglobites. We are here, now, nothing more. Wake up and smell the roses. Get off the computer, get some fresh air. Seriously. There's more to life than science and philosophy.

Except that the argument that something is impossible because it is highly improbably is silly at best.

The probably that a particular arrangement of cards in a deck of 52 cards would have that particular arrangement is something close to 1/52!, or 1/52 +1/51+1/50etc. Calculating this out (yes, I actually calculated this out) is something along the lines of: 1/(8.06*10^67) or 1 in 8.06*10^67. Are you suggesting that, because of this extremely low probability of getting this particular arrangement of cards, the cards HAD to be arranged intelligently? When in fact the cards can quite easily be shown to be randomly assigned in that order following laws of probability? Is that really what you're trying to say?
Except that the cards had to have been arranged some way. I realize that the same holds true for the matter in the universe, but the arrangement of every proton, neutron, and electron is just a touch more complex than a deck of cards.

Take your same deck of cards. If you found those cards arranged in order, 2 through ace of spades, 2 through ace of clubs, 2 through ace of diamonds, and 2 through ace of hearts, what would the logical assumption be? Be honest, you'd assume, like anyone else, that it was probably arranged that way by someone. It's possible that it came about by random chance, but not very likely.

Now consider you're walking down the street when you happen to see a fully functional watch laying on the ground. What would the assumption be? That the components of a watch coincidentally fell into the proper arrangement to make a working watch, or that someone built that watch? Now take that same logic and apply it to a car. Now a space shuttle. And now apply it to the human body, something infinitely more complex than any man-made construct. Now you want to suddenly change your tune and say that the parts of a human being randomly fell into place that way? Why does the logical conclusion change simply because you can't physically see the designer?

What mechanism do you propose for this 'intelligence'? How does it affect the genome?
It would probably have to be some kind of supernatural power of some sort. In which case it's mechanism for affecting the genome would probably be difficult or impossible for us to comprehend.

By the way, I'll apologize if I'm repeating anything that's already been said, although I suspect that after 1300 posts on a subject it's probably hard to not be repetitive.

It's name might be, but a galaxy by any other name would shine as brightly.
Kudos on the Shakespeare reference. :)

-Neo-Luddite rantings-

Then leave. Noone's got a gun to your head forcing you to make a fool of yourself. Leave, and let us all go back to talking about intelligent things, instead of responding to your babblings.

[FONT="Georgia"]Except that the cards had to have been arranged some way. I realize that the same holds true for the matter in the universe, but the arrangement of every proton, neutron, and electron is just a touch more complex than a deck of cards.

Take your same deck of cards. If you found those cards arranged in order, 2 through ace of spades, 2 through ace of clubs, 2 through ace of diamonds, and 2 through ace of hearts, what would the logical assumption be? Be honest, you'd assume, like anyone else, that it was probably arranged that way by someone. It's possible that it came about by random chance, but not very likely.

If I wasn't already aware that it had been intelligently arranged, I might suspect that they had been. They could easily have been randomly arranged that way, though, however unlikely. What you also fail to realize is two things:
A) In all likelihood many of the underlying constants and values that resulted in this universe being the way it is are coupled to one another, which limits the amount of variance you can actually achive. It's not that gravity could been a billion times more intense, there simply isn't that much room for variance.
B) An emerging theory that has been getting considerable media attention but is as yet (like most of string theory) impossible to test is the theory that we are but one of an infinite number of universes. This means that, while you have a ridiculously low probability of things being the way they are, you have an infinite amount of tries to get it this way.


Edit: On an unrelated note, LG, what was your concentration in Undergrad Physics?

Science is death.

Especially that medical science. Its the worst :rolleyes:

Especially that medical science. Its the worst :rolleyes:

Yup, that'd be the medical profession.

The Science of Medicine: Curing you to death since the time of Hippocrates.

Hahaha!

I try to explain things all nice and shit, and you go off calling me a drug dealer and a fake attempt at deep philosophy. I'll tell you one thing, you all wouldn't know reality from a Disney movie.
Oooh, I know this one. Cartoons have those black lines around everything, reality doesn't.

What do you think you know about reality? All you seem to be able to say is that it is, and any child knows that. That might be enough for you, but some of us want to understand this reality we find ourselves in. We're not content to just sit a mope about how nothing matters.
Heres the thing that you all need to get through you're skulls: you take this science shit on faith. You take God on faith. What is faith? false hope. That's it. One of these days you'll die, and none of this will matter. Science is death. God is dead. But then, so are we.
Yes, we're going to die eventually. But in the mean time we're going to live the way we want to. And we want to understand this universe, even if we're only in it for a relatively tiny amount of time.

Yeah, I hate my fucking computer. It is a mindless waste of time and energy, as evidence by my hours on this damn site. Damn, I was born in the wrong generation.
So turn the computer off. It's pretty simple. If you hate technology then stop using it. Try the Australian outack, you'd love it.
Fuck technology. Fuck the stars. Who gives a shit? Seriously, why the hell does it matter how far away a damn point of light is in the sky?I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. It doesn't matter if we were created out of Saturn's nostrils or if we evolved from troglobites.
Wrong. It does matter. Know why? Because we say so. Our lives are fleeting. In the grand scheme of things none of us are likely to make a difference. So since our lives have no inherent value, we give them value. Because they're all we have.
We are here, now, nothing more. Wake up and smell the roses. Get off the computer, get some fresh air. Seriously. There's more to life than science and philosophy.
Why don't you do the same? And I don't see the point in your little "more to life" bit. None of us think that.
Kudos on the Shakespeare reference. :)

Thanks :)

And after God created atheists,... he then set forth to create nihilists... go forth ye orphaned children of a believe.

And after God created atheists,... he then set forth to create nihilists... go forth ye orphaned children of a believe.

Nihilists are emos who focus on the big picture. *nods*

Nihilists are emos who focus on the big picture. *nods*

You have my sigs virginity

So what's this then? I'll tell you what it isn't; it's not a point of light in the sky.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a2/SN1994D.jpg/600px-SN1994D.jpg

It's a supernova. In a different galaxy.

Satan proving he's good with photoshop? :p

No, that's exactly what you are doing. You are saying that science should take into account creationist viewpoints, even though we cannot test them. You're not the man saying there is a dragon, but you're attempting to state that we must take said man seriously even though we can never show/find/test the dragon.

Sure. Why not take it seriously? Because of prejudice? That is a far more serious error.

Like I said, creationism is a philosophical position. In order to be a creationist, one doesn't need to show/find/test the dragon.


But you put your money on something that has no evidence whatsoever and state we should take it into account as well.

It's only your prejudice that considers there to be no evidence, like I pointed out before. If you would open your mind, you would probably find that there is a mountain of evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong
I would say that it doesn't support a 30 million year estimation. 30 million years is a very long time.

So show evidence supporting your view. I'll wait.

Wait a minute. You want evidence that organic material cannot survive 30 million years? You must be joking, right? See what I'm up against? Jokers like you who believe that 30 million years is a drop in the bucket, and that it's no problem for the remains of blood to survive that long. Sheesh.


Nice red herring. You quote one article out of context then claim "most people believe". You then claimed that they stopped their research and said "evolutiondidit" of which you've also shown no evidence.

Wrong again. I didn't quote the article out of context. I quoted what they said.

And I didn't claim that they stopped their research. I mentioned that they ended their paper with an attitude that I thought smacks of 'evolutiondidit'.

Most likely they are already preparing their next paper. But I doubt they are going to include in their next paper some questions about whether the multiple coding genes evolved or not.


So you deny the current evidence for an unsupported myth which you want added to the equation.

You are a fervent believer, I suppose.


Oh, BS. DNA etc. has been tested and shows links. That's been posted many times and you know it. If you have something opposing that then show it. Otherwise you've once again shown yourself to be as intellectually honest as the ICR folks.

Links? You are convinced by evolutionary theory because of links? Why would links convince anyone. Heck, even most conspiracy theories have links. What does having links mean?

By the way, if you aren't simply ignoring what I am posting, you will see that my point holds. Common ancestry between apes and humans cannot be observed, and cannot be tested. Yes, the DNA does show high levels of similarity that can be observed. But this is also what we might expect given a creationist scenario, so similarity (what I suppose you mean by 'links') is not necessarily evidence for evolution.


And how does that "small kid" know it's a bird's nest? Oh, right, because he's been taughtand shown that it's been observed that birds build nests. There are birds.

You're really reaching for this one.
.

I was actually thinking of my own childhood. I was into investigating nature, before I went to school, before anyone taught me. And I found that I had no trouble distinguishing between design and non-design, between a rabbit hole, and one made by water. It really isn't that hard. I didn't need anyone to teach me that.




Here B, do some reading. You may want to note that there's actually evidence involved in this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

You may claim it's just "scientific scepticism". However you've shown it's more along the lines of "blinders" especially since you don't follow the scientific method.
.

Sure I follow the scientific method. But I don't follow the naturalistic assumptions that you do.


Sure, the fossil record can be made to show progress if you really squint your eyes, turn your head on the side, and stare long enough. Seriously, the list of transitional fossils on the talkonorigins site are hotly debated. Take, for example, the first point:

''Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them. ''

Firstly, we don't know if they are human ancestors, or just extinct species. The judgement is based on bone morphology and the assumption that apes and humans share a common ancestry. That will never convince anyone who doesn't hold this assumption.

Furthermore, I suspect that most of the variation in the human-like skulls are present in modern human populations.

''The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).''

This would appear to be microevolution, similar to what we see among cows (Longhorns compared to Jerseys). How we are expected to believe that this supports macroevolution is just weak.

''A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997). ''

Here they are still pointing to minor variations as evidence for macroevolution. That is unbelievable. The variation could have easily been present in concurrent populations. Many of their other examples can also be put into the same category.

Then they go on to point out speciation. How the hell would they know, since the definition of speciation usually involves vague definitions of similarity (in the case of asexual organisms) or inability to crossbreed (in the case of sexual organisms)?

Then they go on to fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla, with no way of knowing whether the transitions really did occur or if they are just lining up organisms based on similarity, based on the assumption that this must be right because all of the life forms today are related through common ancestry. They do the same with the transitions between the whales and the land mammals. They have no way of knowing if there was evolution producing the different forms, despite their claim ''the transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust''.

All the while, they never mention that the gaps between

Ambulocetus natans: Early to Middle Eocene, above Pakicetus. It had short front limbs and hind legs adapted for swimming; undulating its spine up and down helped its swimming. It apparently could walk on land as well as swim (Thewissen et al. 1994).

and

Indocetus ramani: earliest Middle Eocene (Gingerich et al. 1993).

and

Dorudon: the dominant cetacean of the late Eocene. Their tiny hind limbs were not involved in locomotion.

are all missing. There is only the Indocetus ramania between walking the whale/mammal (Ambulocetus natans) and the Dorudon. Quite a jump, really. But they do mention that the Dorudon is dominant. I suppose they mean that they have found lots of Dorudon fossils. Strange, though, that the inbetween fossils are completely lacking, and yet are prepared to conclude that ''the transitional sequence from a land mammal to whales is quite robust''.

Nor do they mention how many of the fossils suddenly appear in the strata, without any trace of ancestors.

Nor do they mention that many of the missing links are constructed from very incomplete fossils, some as little as a single jawbone, or a pelvis.

It is altogether a feeble effort, and as any skeptic would conclude, only those who are already convinced would be impressed by it.


QUOTE=Kecibukia]
That's what comes from reading ID websites and taking them as an authority.
.[/QUOTE]

Wait a second. You are criticising me for reading pro-ID websites, and yet see nothing wrong with running to the talkonorigins website, which is clearly supporting naturalistic evolution? And you have the brass to consider talkonorigins as an authority?

Get off the computer, get some fresh air. Seriously. There's more to life than science and philosophy.

And there's more to life than meaningless hedonism.

You have my sigs virginity
:fluffle:
By the way, if you aren't simply ignoring what I am posting, you will see that my point holds. Common ancestry between apes and humans cannot be observed, and cannot be tested. Yes, the DNA does show high levels of similarity that can be observed. But this is also what we might expect given a creationist scenario, so similarity (what I suppose you mean by 'links') is not necessarily evidence for evolution.

Common ancestry is the conclusion, not the observation. One doesn't test the conclusion, one tests the hypothesis, surely?

However, at the end of the day, decomposition products of blood and bone have probably been found (in the words of the researchers) in a dinosaur fossil, and that was certainly not expected if the fossil is 30 million years ago. I have presented this, not as strong evidence for a young earth, but as an example of how often the 'evolutiondidit' explanation is invoked.

30 million years? Seriously, read the article. You're making yourself look like an idiot.

[Some self-indulgent teenage angst type rant.]


Oh, so you don't like reality. Boo hoo. You clearly have access to a phoneline, so phone for someone who cares.

if u believe in god

ur wrong.

if u believe in god

ur wrong.

Wait, you did not just post that. Holy shit. Holy shit. All my life I've been wrong. How could I have been so foolish? OF COURSE! It all makes sense now - tremendous typing efforts could be saved if I adopted this miraculous convention of excluding the 'yo' from the pronoun 'you' to create a similar, yet more concise meaning! Thank u StupidPoems!

if u believe in god

ur wrong.

I believe in spelling and grammer.

i dont. wots ur point?

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y239/NuGo1988/ighzi9.gif

I believe in spelling and grammer.

i dont. wots ur point?

if u believe in god

ur wrong.

I believe in God

So whats your point?

Not really

Wait, you did not just post that. Holy shit. Holy shit. All my life I've been wrong. How could I have been so foolish? OF COURSE! It all makes sense now - tremendous typing efforts could be saved if I adopted this miraculous convention of excluding the 'yo' from the pronoun 'you' to create a similar, yet more concise meaning! Thank u StupidPoems!

brilliant isn't it. hey, check this out, you'll love it.... 'ur'

wow...that's like... another two letters less...

I'll have to start charging for these tips.

I believe in God

So whats your point?

Not really

I'm not making a point in the means of stating an argument. I'm merely telling you that you are wrong. By all means laugh in my face when we're waiting at the gates of Hell.

O but of course, you're a believer so you'll be up waiting to get into Heaven. Meanwhile I'm doomed to eternal suffering. Aww man that sucks.

I'm not making a point in the means of stating an argument. I'm merely telling you that you are wrong. By all means laugh in my face when we're waiting at the gates of Hell.

O but of course, you're a believer so you'll be up waiting to get into Heaven. Meanwhile I'm doomed to eternal suffering. Aww man that sucks.

You have much to learn about the joy of white text grasshopper ;)

if u believe in god

ur wrong.

hmmm... I believe in God.

and I believe in Evolution (as do a majority of Christians)...

so if I'm wrong, as your brilliantly thought out argument states...

then you just said that evolution is wrong.

ergo, that means that you believe that Creationism is correct...

which requires a belief in a God-like being.

and a God like being would be God for the sake of Creationists...

so you believe in God.

thus you're wrong.

...

I think we can stop there. :p

Junii I have a question for you? Do you have a life? I was just wondering?

Junii I have a question for you? Do you have a life? I was just wondering?

WARNING! WARNING!
Potential flamebait detected!
All forum firefighters to your stations!

WARNING! WARNING!
Potential flamebait detected!
All forum firefighters to your stations!

*runs screaming*

Oh god.


Homie just reversed EVERYTHING we'd done and worked for in this thread within a couple posts. Jesus FUCK.

Thank you for not reading the thread. Thank you for not reading our posts. Thank you for still feeling the need to give us the same bullshit we've been disproving the whole way down. Thank you for making Christians as a whole look -terrible- by giving another example that idiots can point to and say "Look, they're fucking morons!" even though it's a stereotypical generalization.

Now go away before you look even more idiotic.

Junii I have a question for you? Do you have a life? I was just wondering?

nope. I'm posting from the afterlife. :D

nope. I'm posting from the afterlife. :D

*subtly directs JuNii towards the Garlic thread*
Not for long you're not!

*subtly directs JuNii towards the Garlic thread*
Not for long you're not!

mmm Garlic... I love Garlic... :p

I'm not making a point in the means of stating an argument. I'm merely telling you that you are wrong. By all means laugh in my face when we're waiting at the gates of Hell.

O but of course, you're a believer so you'll be up waiting to get into Heaven. Meanwhile I'm doomed to eternal suffering. Aww man that sucks.

By saying that you will meet someone at the gates of Hell, you're implying that Satan exists, and in order for Satan to exist, God must therefore exist. After all, Hell and heaven were created together and Lucifer, once an angel was banished to Hell by God.

You cannot believe in Hell without believing in Heaven, as the two go hand in hand.

Your second statement also contradicts your earlier point about God not existing and people being wrong to believe in it. After all, Heaven was a creation of God and couldn't exist based on that which is in scripture without God's interference.

(and yes, I'm still the godless atheist bitch I was earlier, I just like picking on people who make such obvious mistakes).

By saying that you will meet someone at the gates of Hell, you're implying that Satan exists, and in order for Satan to exist, God must therefore exist. After all, Hell and heaven were created together and Lucifer, once an angel was banished to Hell by God.

You cannot believe in Hell without believing in Heaven, as the two go hand in hand.

Your second statement also contradicts your earlier point about God not existing and people being wrong to believe in it. After all, Heaven was a creation of God and couldn't exist based on that which is in scripture without God's interference.

(and yes, I'm still the godless atheist bitch I was earlier, I just like picking on people who make such obvious mistakes).

Why should bringing up Hell imply that Satan exists? Personally, I don't think Satan does exist. My thorough evidence suggests that, actually, Darth Vader is supreme ruler of the underworld. I know this because my name is Skywalker...

Look, you don't have to tie evolution and religion together. That's what many people wrongly do. It's fine to believe in both, because they should not be directly linked.But they are directly linked because of what the bible claims, which invalidates every understanding of evolution for the faithful.

hmmm... I believe in God.

and I believe in Evolution (as do a majority of Christians)...

so if I'm wrong, as your brilliantly thought out argument states...

then you just said that evolution is wrong.

ergo, that means that you believe that Creationism is correct...

which requires a belief in a God-like being.

and a God like being would be God for the sake of Creationists...

so you believe in God.

thus you're wrong.

...

I think we can stop there. :p


Look, you don't have to tie evolution and religion together. That's what many people wrongly do. It's fine to believe in both, because they should not be directly linked.

I believe in evolution. I do NOT believe in divinity.

ah, but your post didn't specifiy what "those who believe in God" are wrong about.

So you must've meant a general "wrong about everything." ;)

now if you just said, "Those who believe in Creationism as it is written in the Bible being true are wrong about that."

then I would agree. :cool:

But, untill God's existance can either be proven or disproven (which it can't) who's to say who's wrong. it's just a difference of opinion.

UB will say you're wrong.

Look, you don't have to tie evolution and religion together. That's what many people wrongly do. It's fine to believe in both, because they should not be directly linked.

I believe in evolution. I do NOT believe in divinity.
ah, but your post didn't specifiy what "those who believe in God" are wrong about.

So you must've meant a general "wrong about everything." ;)

now if you just said, "Those who believe in Creationism as it is written in the Bible being true are wrong about that."

then I would agree. :cool:

But, untill God's existance can either be proven or disproven (which it can't) who's to say who's wrong. it's just a difference of opinion.

Why should bringing up Hell imply that Satan exists? Personally, I don't think Satan does exist. My thorough evidence suggests that, actually, Darth Vader is supreme ruler of the underworld. I know this because my name is Skywalker...

I say it because Heaven and Hell are mutually inclusive of each other. You cannot simply say that you will meet someone at the Gates of Hell without implying first that there is a Heaven. How would know know you're at the Gates of Hell if Heaven didn't first exist?

It could be labelled Hell, but it wouldn't necessarily be the same as the Hell you're implying exists. For that Hell to exist, other factors are to be considered. Same with Heaven.

Now then, because you said the believer would go to Heaven, you're saying that there might be a God because that's what the believer in this case believes.

But they are directly linked because of what the bible claims, which invalidates every understanding of evolution for the faithful.

Only if you take it literally, which you seem to be unable to grasp is not a prerequisite for a belief in God.

Only if you take it literally, which you seem to be unable to grasp is not a prerequisite for a belief in God.The belief in biblical God is entirely based on the bible. So if you believe in its God how could you reject other parts of the bible arbitrarily?

ah, but your post didn't specifiy what "those who believe in God" are wrong about.

So you must've meant a general "wrong about everything." ;)

now if you just said, "Those who believe in Creationism as it is written in the Bible being true are wrong about that."

then I would agree. :cool:

But, untill God's existance can either be proven or disproven (which it can't) who's to say who's wrong. it's just a difference of opinion.

I think it was a little obvious that when I said "u are wrong" I implied association with belief in God.


No one who expects me to believe in him, without ever giving me a reason to, will ever deserve my belief. And if he is up there, wanking off his own creation, annoyed that I don't believe in him, I hope he considers himself lucky that I'm not there to kick his arse! Because if he truly exists, why doesn't he do something about all the shit that goes on in the world?!

*calms down*

The belief in biblical God is entirely based on the bible. So if you believe in its God how could you reject other parts of the bible arbitrarily?

Because anyone with basic reading skills could understand that Genesis is meant to be an allegory?

Because anyone with basic reading skills could understand that Genesis is meant to be an allegory?Allegory for what?

The belief in biblical God is entirely based on the bible. So if you believe in its God how could you reject other parts of the bible arbitrarily?

Society changes. Context changes. People adapt.

It's like Shakespeare - his plays made more sense and were more legitimate at their time. (Some of his audience actually believed in witches.) It does not remove their brilliance. The Bible has been written over many years, but has not been edited. It's stories have to be interpreted contextually. You can't just expect to take everything literally, or on the other hand reject everything completely. For instance, I'm atheist, but I do believe in the existence if a Roman Empire, some 2000 years ago...

Society changes. Context changes. People adapt.And? How does that change the biblical text? It may only change the interpretations, but not the basic setup of its "message". Without the bible there would be no belief in the biblical God in the first place, so you can either believe in it or not. But if you do, you need to believe in all of it, otherwise you are just arbitrarily picking what you like, and your belief becomes incoherent and unbelievable.

And? How does that change the biblical text? It may only change the interpretations, but not the basic setup of its "message". Without the bible there would be no belief in the biblical God in the first place, so you can either believe in it or not. But if you do, you need to believe in all of it, otherwise you are just arbitrarily picking what you like, and your belief becomes incoherent and unbelievable.
Since millions of people believe it, it quite clearly is believable. ;)

I think it was a little obvious that when I said "u are wrong" I implied association with belief in God.


No one who expects me to believe in him, without ever giving me a reason to, will ever deserve my belief. And if he is up there, wanking off his own creation, annoyed that I don't believe in him, I hope he considers himself lucky that I'm not there to kick his arse! Because if he truly exists, why doesn't he do something about all the shit that goes on in the world?!

*calms down*but no one on this thread is asking you or anyone else to believe in God. Correction... I'm not asking you to believe in God.

If you don't want to believe in God, that is your choice. I respect that and thus will not try to convince you of anything. Heck, even I say Creationism belongs in Theology and not science.

but no one on this thread is asking you or anyone else to believe in God. Correction... I'm not asking you to believe in God.

If you don't want to believe in God, that is your choice. I respect that and thus will not try to convince you of anything. Heck, even I say Creationism belongs in Theology and not science.

What kind of christian are you? Letting the damned remain damned!

Since millions of people believe it, it quite clearly is believable. ;)schizoid folks

schizoid folks

Yes, the majority of the world is insane. In fact, you're probably the only sane one..........

What kind of christian are you? Letting the damned remain damned!

one who knows
1) When one pushes hard, the resistance gets tougher.
2) Converting someone's religion on a POLITICAL forum is almost impossible.
3) Would rather be polite and witness according to my actions than by waving my bible and quoting scripture.

but no one on this thread is asking you or anyone else to believe in God. Correction... I'm not asking you to believe in God.

If you don't want to believe in God, that is your choice. I respect that and thus will not try to convince you of anything. Heck, even I say Creationism belongs in Theology and not science.

I'm wasn't annoyed at a person. I am annoyed by the people who follow a fictious character that complacently fails to address the problems of our corrupt, broken and ultimately imperfect world. If God is real, he is idol. What annoys me is you accept that.

one who knows
1) When one pushes hard, the resistance gets tougher.
2) Converting someone's religion on a POLITICAL forum is almost impossible.
3) Would rather be polite and witness according to my actions than by waving my bible and quoting scripture.

So you'll just let him be damned for eternity then, thats not really so bad is it, probably not worth trying.

So you'll just let him be damned for eternity then, thats not really so bad is it, probably not worth trying.

tbh I'm really not worth struggling for. If I ever made it to Heaven I would never do the dishes OR the washing up. EVEN if it was my turn!

And? How does that change the biblical text? It may only change the interpretations, but not the basic setup of its "message". Without the bible there would be no belief in the biblical God in the first place, so you can either believe in it or not. But if you do, you need to believe in all of it, otherwise you are just arbitrarily picking what you like, and your belief becomes incoherent and unbelievable.

You mean like most fundementalists, especially the "literal and inerrant" crowd who are best described be "the bible says exactly what it says except where it doesn't"

It's nature is determined by us? Eh, not really. It's name might be, but a galaxy by any other name would shine as brightly.

Shine to whom?

So you'll just let him be damned for eternity then, thats not really so bad is it, probably not worth trying.

Not all demoninations of Christianity suscribe to the "faith alone" doctrine. Quite a few suscribe to the "deeds" doctrine.

Well, no. We define a galaxy by a particular set of criteria, and then record our observations of objects that fit this criteria.
What I said.

Even if we didn't know of them or label them, they would still be there, and they would still exist in that manner. We just wouldn't call them galaxies.

It's how we define pretty much everything we can observe. We define apples by a set of specific criteria:
It has to be the fruit of an apple tree, which we identify by a particular type of bark, leaf pattern, etc.
We define fruit a particular way
We define bark and leaf patterns a particular way
And this all wraps up into descriptions of the objects around us.

But even if we didn't define apples by that criteria, they would still fit that criteria, and still be what they are.
Who sets the criteria?

If I wasn't already aware that it had been intelligently arranged, I might suspect that they had been. They could easily have been randomly arranged that way, though, however unlikely. What you also fail to realize is two things:
A) In all likelihood many of the underlying constants and values that resulted in this universe being the way it is are coupled to one another, which limits the amount of variance you can actually achive. It's not that gravity could been a billion times more intense, there simply isn't that much room for variance.
B) An emerging theory that has been getting considerable media attention but is as yet (like most of string theory) impossible to test is the theory that we are but one of an infinite number of universes. This means that, while you have a ridiculously low probability of things being the way they are, you have an infinite amount of tries to get it this way.

A) I'm not sure of the relevance of this. I'm not debating the laws of physics (no, not even the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Those laws are what they are. I don't see how the gravitational constant or any other physical laws really effect the source of genetic mutation, which is the question at hand.
B) I hope you'll forgive me, but this is a truly ironic statement. The fact that the presence of a creator is untestable is very frequently brought up by Darwinians to banish intelligent design to the realm of philosophy and theology rather than science. I'm sure it's an intriguing hypothesis -- not a theory, which must be supported by experimentation -- but that's all it is.

I'm wasn't annoyed at a person. I am annoyed by the people who follow a fictious character that complacently fails to address the problems of our corrupt, broken and ultimately imperfect world. If God is real, he is idol. What annoys me is you accept that.gee... so you discount all the charities and all those who do and did good because of their faith.

You expect a great big hand to come down and with a wiggle of the finger, make everything to YOUR satisfaction.

and you're annoyed because that hasn't happened.

I would suggest you look up all the past religion threads and study them. maybe you'll find your answer there, but as long as you already made up your mind on God, I doubt any answer would satisfy you.

So you'll just let him be damned for eternity then, thats not really so bad is it, probably not worth trying. Did I say not worth trying?
Read my points again. He (and others) already said his mind is made up... so what, I discount his opinions and try to 'shove my beliefs down his throat'? sorry, not my way, and not a way to win converts. :cool:


tbh I'm really not worth struggling for. If I ever made it to Heaven I would never do the dishes OR the washing up. EVEN if it was my turn! Never say that. For all you know, sometime in the future, you may have a revelation that opens you up to the belief in God. ;)

Who sets the criteria?
Probably those people who decided that Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
B) I hope you'll forgive me, but this is a truly ironic statement. The fact that the presence of a creator is untestable is very frequently brought up by Darwinians to banish intelligent design to the realm of philosophy and theology rather than science. I'm sure it's an intriguing hypothesis -- not a theory, which must be supported by experimentation -- but that's all it is.

You don't have to prove that something is untestable. Whether it is or not isn't a theory, it's a fact. It is currently beyond our ability to test for an intelligent designer. This is either because such a thing is completely impossible and we'll never be able to do it, or because we just haven't figured out how to yet.

To suggest that scientists should have to empirically prove that they are unable to do something is foolishness, nothing more.

Besides, it's impossible to prove a negative.

Probably those people who decided that Pluto isn't a planet anymore.
Those same people.

You don't have to prove that something is untestable. Whether it is or not isn't a theory, it's a fact. It is currently beyond our ability to test for an intelligent designer. This is either because such a thing is completely impossible and we'll never be able to do it, or because we just haven't figured out how to yet.

To suggest that scientists should have to empirically prove that they are unable to do something is foolishness, nothing more.

Besides, it's impossible to prove a negative.
That's not what I'm saying. Anyone with half a brain can say that the existence of a creator/creators can not be proven. What I'm saying is that it's ironic that Deus Malum is attempting to refute my argument using a hypothesis that he himself admits is currently untestable. I'm also saying that when I argue with Darwinians, I typically try to refute the random component of evolution rather than espousing the existence of a God, because the latter would most certainly be religion as opposed to science.

gee... so you discount all the charities and all those who do and did good because of their faith.

You expect a great big hand to come down and with a wiggle of the finger, make everything to YOUR satisfaction.

and you're annoyed because that hasn't happened.

I would suggest you look up all the past religion threads and study them. maybe you'll find your answer there, but as long as you already made up your mind on God, I doubt any answer would satisfy you.



Actually, yes. It is disappointing that a big hand doesn't come down and tweak everything to perfection.

At the end of the day, I don't expect it to. I don't believe in omnipotence. But the thing is, believers do. And I find it odd how they believe there is someone who can solve this problem with the wink of an eye, but does not. I don't have time to scour through hundreds of religion threads, so please tell me where suffering, war, hunger and disease fit into God's plan.

That's not what I'm saying. Anyone with half a brain can say that the existence of a creator/creators can not be proven. What I'm saying is that it's ironic that Deus Malum is attempting to refute my argument using a hypothesis that he himself admits is currently untestable. I'm also saying that when I argue with Darwinians, I typically try to refute the random component of evolution rather than espousing the existence of a God, because the latter would most certainly be religion as opposed to science.

The key difference is that it's presently untestable. However, we know it to be falsifiable, and we have criteria for testing. The trouble is that we presently don't have the technology to do so. We can develop the technology to do so, something we are making steps towards.

The Creationist designer argument, on the other hand, is completely untestable. Not presently untestable, permanently untestable, within the confines of the scientific method. This is an important distinction, and what makes the multiverse theory a theory, and the Creationist designer a conjecture at best.

The key difference is that it's presently untestable. However, we know it to be falsifiable, and we have criteria for testing. The trouble is that we presently don't have the technology to do so. We can develop the technology to do so, something we are making steps towards.

The Creationist designer argument, on the other hand, is completely untestable. Not presently untestable, permanently untestable, within the confines of the scientific method. This is an important distinction, and what makes the multiverse theory a theory, and the Creationist designer a conjecture at best.
The fact that we may be able to test it at some point in the future does not make it a theory. It's a hypothesis until it's been tested.

But the rise of science happened before evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism. The vast majority of these people, such as Newton and Pasteur, were chaps who thought that the universe was created by a rational God and thus was a rational place, and therefore was favourable to a rational investigation. What would you call these chaps? Creationists? I would say so. Sure, you can follow the modern Creationist movement from chaps like Morris and Whitcomb, but this was pretty much a reaction to what they felt was aggressive atheistic doctrines masquerading as science. In that sense, the modern movement contrasted to the older Creationists. Nevertheless, science was a fully active process before evolutionary theory and uniformitarianism, demonstrating its independence from such concepts.

All right. I'm going to stop using "Creationist" because you keep mixing it up with what I'm trying to say and that's "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC). I don't believe I've ever argued against an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) theory- in fact, that's where I stand- just against YEC.

Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again- to have a bias against an idea that idea has to exist first. People like Issac Newton and Euclid could not possibly be biased against YEC because they didn't even know about it (or Charles Darwin's theory, for that matter) as it hadn't been around yet. For any kind of scientific bias against YEC it'd have to exist after at least the 1910s (because before then, the vast majority were willing to fit Darwin into their beliefs- it's only after the rise of fundamentalist Christianity at this time that this thought began to change into modern YEC theory) and, more likely, after 1961, because that's when YEC truly began its attempt as a legitimate scientific theory (and one diametrically opposed to Evolution). So there's quite a bit of time for Darwin's theory to work without any possibility that there's a huge scientific bias for it (which I doubt is there anyway because of the scientific method and because scientists don't bother much with YEC anyway).

The assumption that evolutionary theory and naturalism are under attack simply by people who are insecure in their faith is very much an inaccurate generalisation. Sure, there are lots of people who are insecure in their beliefs, regardless of what their beliefs are, atheists included. But to assume that the attacks come only from religious poeple suffering from insecurities is about as unfounded a claim that everyone opposed to me on this forum is insecure about their belief in evolutionary theory.

I have pointed out several times that my belief in God does not rule out uniformitarian assumptions, nor the theory of evolution. If I criticise the assumptions, it is because I consider them inadequate, not because they threaten my concept of God. They don't satisfy my scientific skepticism. I realize that my criticisms don't satisfy many people either. But that just tells me that I should refrain from gross generalisations that I can't verify.

I don't claim that all religious people who accept evolutionary theory are doing so to avoid criticism, even though there are bound to be some of those. I don't claim that all atheists believe in evolutionary theory because it removes a need for God as a cause, even though there are bound to be some of those too. Rather, I allow for honest atheists who don't let their motivations blind them. But you won't allow for religious people who honestly think that evolution is not scientific. Why not?

....

Whenever a scientist constructs notions about the origins, since we have no way to test those notions directly, we are left with the option of believing him/her or not believing. In fact, you have probably never been to Antartica. That means you have never seen it for youself. But I suppose you don't have any trouble believing that it is there. The point is that you have to choose between belief and non-belief unless you want to test it for yourself.

The whole point of this debate is whether or not we find the theory of evolution believable, and whether we believe it or not. And that has a lot to do with how much confidence we have in the experts, and their ability to construct realistic scenarios about the origins. Thus, you are right. Science can appear as a 'belief system'. That means that things like ancient scenarios of origins are constructed and either believed, or not believed. That means that they should not actually be considered science, because they are not testible.

The idea that science can only produce naturalistic explanations is an assertion from naturalistic philosophy. Science actually doesn't produce any explanations. People do that, based on their philosophical governing assumptions. The 'rule' that people are only allowed to use naturalistic governing assumptions for their 'scientific' explanations was invented by the proponents of naturalism, naturally.

I've never said it, and NERVUN's point (it's not my own) is that because our society is generally secular, it will look to science to provide all the answers and, perhaps, revere it as if it were a deity (subconsciously). This has to come as a troubling worry for some religious folk worried that people may be turning away from religion to provide their answers, and I think this sentiment colours some YEC documents considering it's highly inflammatory of Evolution and science as a whole (I think I see more exclamation points in YEC documents than in scientific journals, but this is just one aspect of this anti-Evolution bias, of which YECers are much more upfront about (and are probably operating more under) than any mainstream scientist).

The problem with that is that what constitutes evidence depends a great deal on your governing assumptions. What a creationist calls a mountain of evidence, the naturalist will discard as arguments and speculations based on non-scientific belief in a creator. What the naturalist considers as a mountain of evidence, the creationist discard as arguments and speculation committed to non-scientific naturalistic assumptions.

You seem wrapped up in this idea that science is all "assumptions" when it's not. I've pointed it out to you before and I'll point it out again- if science comes up with an "assumption", it's based on evidence- hard data- and it's got to have a lot of consistent hard data before it can make any assumption. You seem, for example, to think that a day after James Hutton proposed Uniformitarianism that scientists unilaterally accepted it- no, it was tested, and tested, for decades before it was accepted as a consensus (and bear in mind that the "consensus" is just the essence of a particular theory- there are still many minor details to work out). Dating methods were constructed to verify the Old Earth claim, and they panned out, which is why the Old Earth is a scientific consensus. Nobody decided one day that the Earth *had* to be 4.6 billion years old and designed everything just to make sure it all fit- and if they did, they'd be caught and they wouldn't have so many independent and diverse experiments spanning centuries agreeing with their hypothesis. Yet YECers *do* decide to make the Earth 6,000 years old and contort the data to make sure it agrees with the hypothesis (Russell Humphreys' work is a good example of this) instead of collecting data and making an assumption based on that data. This is why YEC has run counter to the scientific method- they're not making a conclusion based on data they're making the data fit a preconceived conclusion.

The flaws are there in the evolutionary theory. They tend to get filled in with speculation. Classic example: The fossil record does not show evolution in progress. Of all the fossils that we have recovered, the vast majority appear to belong to species showing little or no variation over great periods of time, and appearing suddenly in the strata. Hmmm. Not what the supporters of evolution wanted. So they come up with two ideas to account for this. Firstly, fossilization is extremely rare. That means each fossil is only a snapshot, representing the most abundant populations. That explanation isn't testible, but it is easily believable. A safe explanation that cannot be falsified.

Secondly, evolution developed through punctuated equilibrium. That means that the reason why we don't find too many missing links between a lizard and a bird is because that particular part of evolution proceeded in a rather quick jump. So goes the speculation. Evidence for punctuated equilibrium is nil, despite it being a major explanation supporting evolutionary theory. Nor do we know any process that could account for such a jump. Another safe explanation that cannot be falsified. Nevertheless, so armed with their explanations, supporters of evolutionary theory can claim that the fossil record supports evolution. That's because, based on their explanations, we would only expect to see what we do see: the vast majority of fossils appearing to belong to species showing little or no variation over great periods of time, and appearing suddenly in the strata.

First of all, scientific research isn't finished yet- just because something isn't explainable now doesn't mean that it never will be. Furthermore, you seem to be falling into the notion that "Evolution has flaws, it must be invalid"- Evolution isn't 100% perfect (and can never be) and just because something- either an explanation or evidence- doesn't fit well within the theory doesn't make the whole theory wrong- you've got to knock the very foundations of the theory down. A single fossil that's out of place or a single rock that's vaguely dated doesn't invalidate Evolution as there are plenty more fossils and rocks that "fit"; and unless you find alternate explanations for the arrangements (accounting for *all* the evidence, not just some) you'll have a hard time shaking the Evolutionary foundation.

Second of all, you yourself don't seem to know what a "transitional fossil" is:

Sure, the fossil record can be made to show progress if you really squint your eyes, turn your head on the side, and stare long enough. Seriously, the list of transitional fossils on the talkonorigins site are hotly debated. Take, for example, the first point:

''Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them. ''

Firstly, we don't know if they are human ancestors, or just extinct species. The judgement is based on bone morphology and the assumption that apes and humans share a common ancestry. That will never convince anyone who doesn't hold this assumption.

Seems pretty transitional to me and should be pretty obvious for even the casual observer- they're all similar and *would* suggest an ancestral end point (us). Never mind the blurry species line- you wanted a gradual line and you have it. Furthermore, don't tell me that I can't *know* this is a gradual line because I didn't see it happen myself- I don't have to, because it's pretty clear to me that a series of gradual fossils could conceivably indicate evolution, because the Theory of Evolution would provide such fossils and they're there.

Thirdly, you have to define "transitional" and that's not always easy. You have to "know" what it looks like before you can declare any fossil as such and not every case is clear-cut. Does "transitional" have to mean that two fossils share 80% of their traits with a newer fossil adding traits of their own (or losing excess traits) or could "transitional" mean that two fossils share only 5% similarities? Fossils that don't necessarily co-incide with previous notions of the transitional fossil theory won't invalidate the entire theory- it just means that maybe the idea of a transitional fossil has to be worked on a little more. Furthermore, the fossil record does show quite a lot of sequences- we don't have, for example, a lot of pre-Cambrian elephants or birds in Triassic rock. The sequences aren't always clean and don't always have clear paths in either directions, but they're still best explained by Evolution- otherwise, you've got to come up with a reason about why, for example, an Allosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosaurus) is 155 million years old and a Tyrannosaurus Rex is 70 million years old- the T-Rex didn't "appear" did it? It had to have come from somewhere, and the Allosaurus is a great transition point (just to clarify, I'm simplifying here to make a point).

Wait a second. You are criticising me for reading pro-ID websites, and yet see nothing wrong with running to the talkonorigins website, which is clearly supporting naturalistic evolution? And you have the brass to consider talkonorigins as an authority?

Just to back up Kecibukia here: since we're dealing with science, you ought to be reading what's accepted by science, not alternate theories that don't have a shred of scientific legitmacy to them. TalkOrigins is just as biased as the pro-ID sites, but at least TalkOrigins provides sources that have some scientific legitimacy and are thus going to carry a lot more weight in a scientific discussion than any study put forward by the likes of the legitimacy-challenged Henry Morris or Russel Humphreys.

It can be both agnostic and atheistic; but I question whether limiting oneself to the natural defines "atheistic," and whether doubting the natural defines "agnostic," as you seem to imply.

The scientifid method was not "designed to apply only to the natural world," rather it is a result of examination of the natural world.

Yes, but, unless I'm wrong about the definition of agnosticism, it means that one doesn't believe in a deity but is open to the possibility of one existing, and that definition cannot exist in the scientific method. The method must rule out supernatural explanations (as, if it were agnostic, it couldn't), so it must be atheistic.

Yes, the majority of the world is insane. In fact, you're probably the only sane one..........What are you trying to say? That what the majority thinks is automatically right and true?
If you take one part of the bible to create a faith but dismiss another part because of that faith you just created, you are somewhat schizoid.

Yes, but, unless I'm wrong about the definition of agnosticism, it means that one doesn't believe in a deity but is open to the possibility of one existing, and that definition cannot exist in the scientific method. The method must rule out supernatural explanations (as, if it were agnostic, it couldn't), so it must be atheistic.

Being open to the possibility of a god is a result of agnosticism, not a definition of it. The agnostic position on god is that god is unknowable. The reason is a distinction between the universe as it is and the universe as we can know it.

The scientific method "rules out" the supernatural for the same reason agnosticism holds it to be unknowable --what we "know" through our senses and reasoning is nature, by definition. What we can study through the scientific method is what we can "know".

Sure. Why not take it seriously? Because of prejudice? That is a far more serious error.
But that misses the point of science, which deals with things that can be tested for. Again, we can't find the dragon, so does it really matter if the dragon is actually there? It's nice to believe so, I like dragons after all, but when we're working on things to explain how stuff works, if we can't work back and test it, it's worthless to us. It's built upon a shaky foundation.

It's not a prejudice, it's accepting what science actually is and its limitations.

Like I said, creationism is a philosophical position. In order to be a creationist, one doesn't need to show/find/test the dragon.
So you admit then that it ain't science. We're almost there. The next step is to get you to understand then since creationism is a philosophical view point, it has no business attempting to masquerade as science.

Good luck in trying to collect... LG ows me three keyboards, a mouse, and a monitor. :p

I own stock in Logitech. :) *dances*

Hahaha!

I try to explain things all nice and shit, and you go off calling me a drug dealer and a fake attempt at deep philosophy. I'll tell you one thing, you all wouldn't know reality from a Disney movie. Heres the thing that you all need to get through you're skulls: you take this science shit on faith. You take God on faith. What is faith? false hope. That's it. One of these days you'll die, and none of this will matter. Science is death. God is dead. But then, so are we.

Yeah, I hate my fucking computer. It is a mindless waste of time and energy, as evidence by my hours on this damn site. Damn, I was born in the wrong generation. Fuck technology. Fuck the stars. Who gives a shit? Seriously, why the hell does it matter how far away a damn point of light is in the sky?I'll give you a hint: it doesn't. It doesn't matter if we were created out of Saturn's nostrils or if we evolved from troglobites. We are here, now, nothing more. Wake up and smell the roses. Get off the computer, get some fresh air. Seriously. There's more to life than science and philosophy.

I like chocodiles. :)

If I wasn't already aware that it had been intelligently arranged, I might suspect that they had been. They could easily have been randomly arranged that way, though, however unlikely. What you also fail to realize is two things:
A) In all likelihood many of the underlying constants and values that resulted in this universe being the way it is are coupled to one another, which limits the amount of variance you can actually achive. It's not that gravity could been a billion times more intense, there simply isn't that much room for variance.
B) An emerging theory that has been getting considerable media attention but is as yet (like most of string theory) impossible to test is the theory that we are but one of an infinite number of universes. This means that, while you have a ridiculously low probability of things being the way they are, you have an infinite amount of tries to get it this way.


Edit: On an unrelated note, LG, what was your concentration in Undergrad Physics?

Solid State Physics. But I think I would have pushed more toward Astrophysics had I continued my post-grad studies. *nod*

Common ancestry is the conclusion, not the observation. One doesn't test the conclusion, one tests the hypothesis, surely?

An assumption to begin with is that all of life and its variation was possible through natural causes. This is a philosophical position of naturalism. What that means is that since life is unlikely to have arisen, the fact that it is here must mean that it probably only rose once. This concept has led to the idea that if it arose once, then all of life must be related through common ancestry.

So you can already see how the idea of common ancestry is based on both observation and assumption. Both components are present. We assume that natural causes are sufficient. We observe that life is present. The testible part is where we look to see if modern life forms show similarity, with the hypothesis being that we should find high levels of similarity between organisms that we propose are closely related, with the highest levels between those that are most related.

There is a general relationship here, and thus the conclusion that the test results have supported the idea of common ancestry. At that point, the idea of common ancestry is based on both an assumption and an observation.

There are, of course, some problems with this approach. Creationism also predicts that high levels of similarity are present, both because of common ancestry (e.g. for a wolf and fox terrier) and because of a common designer. Similarity, then cannot be conclusive proof for the evolutionary story.

Critics of creationism then point to the fact that creationism is a philosphical position, not a scientific one, since the creator cannot be tested. And because creationism isn't scientific, that leaves only the evolutionary version as scientific theory. And because it is scientific, as opposed to creationism, it must mean that it is more realistic, or more truthful.

What I keep pointing out is that where the evolutionary story is based on naturalistic assumptions, it is also no more scientific than creationism. The philosophical assumption that everything can be explained through natural causes is no more testible than the creator.

Their reply is simply that the scientific method is only allowed to use naturalistic explanations (rather than supernatural) because only naturalistic explanations are testible.

My reply to that is that that means one is entitled to invoke any naturalistic explanation, regardless of how implausible it is, or even ridiculous it is, even if there is not the slightest chance that we can test it, simply because it falls within the category of 'natural'. And this is where I became very skeptical, because I'm not interested in searching for a 'naturalistic explanation for everything'. I'm interested in searching for the truth, regardless of where that takes me.

So when someone invents the idea of dark matter that is resistant to gravitation forces in order to explain some observation naturally, I'm not persuaded by such an argument. To me it is a likely as Santa Claus. It can't be tested, therefore it isn't a scientific explanation.

that means one is entitled to invoke any naturalistic explanation...And this is where I became very skeptical,

Which is strange, cuz that's your comment...

I'm interested in searching for the truth, regardless of where that takes me.
'Where it takes you' being outside science, which is all most people are really trying to tell you.

All right. I'm going to stop using "Creationist" because you keep mixing it up with what I'm trying to say and that's "Young Earth Creationism" (YEC). I don't believe I've ever argued against an Old Earth Creationist (OEC) theory- in fact, that's where I stand- just against YEC.

Then there is only a slight difference between us. We are both Christians, and creationists. The only difference is that you are against young earth creationism, while I'm neither against nor for young earth creationism. I suppose you are against such a position because you are persuaded by the arguments for an old earth. Fair enough, I say. Everyone has a different path to travel.


Anyway, I've said it before and I'll say it again- to have a bias against an idea that idea has to exist first. People like Issac Newton and Euclid could not possibly be biased against YEC because they didn't even know about it (or Charles Darwin's theory, for that matter) as it hadn't been around yet.


Half a moment. Theologians had been estimating the age of the earth from the geneologies in the Bible a long time before the rise of science. The idea of a young earth starts with Judaism. According to the calendar used by the Jews, the assumed date of the creation of the world is 3761 BC.


For any kind of scientific bias against YEC it'd have to exist after at least the 1910s (because before then, the vast majority were willing to fit Darwin into their beliefs- it's only after the rise of fundamentalist Christianity at this time that this thought began to change into modern YEC theory) and, more likely, after 1961, because that's when YEC truly began its attempt as a legitimate scientific theory (and one diametrically opposed to Evolution). So there's quite a bit of time for Darwin's theory to work without any possibility that there's a huge scientific bias for it (which I doubt is there anyway because of the scientific method and because scientists don't bother much with YEC anyway).

Actually, Darwin faced huge amounts of opposition. The theory of evolution didn't take hold until well after his death. He was strongly opposed and even ridiculed. But eventually, those who held on to a young earth position grew fewer and fewer until only ridicule and contempt were reserved for them. The tables had turned.

Today, there isn't very many scientists who are YECs. But there are some, like Walt Brown, with his hydroplate theory. He has a book online that makes for interested reading. I'm not saying that I'm convinced by him, but I do find his points very interesting. He gets a lot of criticism, of course. But why don't you read his book and make up your own mind for yourself?






I've never said it, and NERVUN's point (it's not my own) is that because our society is generally secular, it will look to science to provide all the answers and, perhaps, revere it as if it were a deity (subconsciously). This has to come as a troubling worry for some religious folk worried that people may be turning away from religion to provide their answers, and I think this sentiment colours some YEC documents considering it's highly inflammatory of Evolution and science as a whole (I think I see more exclamation points in YEC documents than in scientific journals, but this is just one aspect of this anti-Evolution bias, of which YECers are much more upfront about (and are probably operating more under) than any mainstream scientist).


I've no doubt that you are right that such a sentiment motivates many of the YEC articles and messages. They do seem rather keen to prove a young earth. I was only reacting to the feeling that you were claiming that all YECs were aflicted by this motivation.

Moreover, I doubt that you could have missed just how keen many people are to show that the world is old and that evolution is the truth. People are just as keen to remove the need for God to explain our existence as they are to show that we do need God to explain our existence.



You seem wrapped up in this idea that science is all "assumptions" when it's not. I've pointed it out to you before and I'll point it out again- if science comes up with an "assumption", it's based on evidence- hard data- and it's got to have a lot of consistent hard data before it can make any assumption. You seem, for example, to think that a day after James Hutton proposed Uniformitarianism that scientists unilaterally accepted it- no, it was tested, and tested, for decades before it was accepted as a consensus (and bear in mind that the "consensus" is just the essence of a particular theory- there are still many minor details to work out). Dating methods were constructed to verify the Old Earth claim, and they panned out, which is why the Old Earth is a scientific consensus. Nobody decided one day that the Earth *had* to be 4.6 billion years old and designed everything just to make sure it all fit- and if they did, they'd be caught and they wouldn't have so many independent and diverse experiments spanning centuries agreeing with their hypothesis. Yet YECers *do* decide to make the Earth 6,000 years old and contort the data to make sure it agrees with the hypothesis (Russell Humphreys' work is a good example of this) instead of collecting data and making an assumption based on that data. This is why YEC has run counter to the scientific method- they're not making a conclusion based on data they're making the data fit a preconceived conclusion.


I certainly have typed in the 'assumptions' word a lot on this thread. To be honest, I'm sick of it. But that has mostly been because most people have not percieved the importance of assumptions in the scientific method. For example, we assume that every effect has a cause, regardless of where it is located in the universe. We can't test that directly. We can testify to data that supports this assumption, but the concept itself remains an assumption, albeit a very useful one. In fact, we have pretty much build science on top of it, and sent people to the moon based on it. Such an assumption works, so there is no reason to review it, IMO.

The assumption of uniformitarianism is also relatively reasonable. Based on this assumption, we shouldn't expect the mutation rates in living organisms to be any different to what they were in the past. I'm not suggesting that science jumps willy nilly onto such assumptions without a good deal of consideration. What I do disagree with is the use of such assumptions to prove that the world is old. No matter how you turn it around and around, assumptions cannot be used to prove a result. That turns into a self-fulfilling prediction, a type of circular reasoning. And no matter how diverse the experiemnts are, if they are all based on the idea that the world is old, there is little wonder that the data is interpreted consistently. Such agreements in the interpretations cannot prove that the world is old, and hold no value outside of the idea that the world is old. If the world is in fact not old, such interpretations are rubbish, and would never be detected as rubbish, so long as the interpreters are not asking such a question.

I actually don't think that most of the YECs are dishonest and try to contort the data at all. I think most of them are quite honest. Maybe they are mistaken, I'm not in a position to say. But the criticism of 'contortion' is generally in reference to the unwillingness to accept uniformitarian assumptions, not a dishonest manipulation of the data. Such claims of distortion is a common tactic in the clash to paint the other side as dishonest. But I see it as simply a fighting tactic. Claims of dishonesty are generally not necessary, although there are exceptions, of course.


First of all, scientific research isn't finished yet- just because something isn't explainable now doesn't mean that it never will be. Furthermore, you seem to be falling into the notion that "Evolution has flaws, it must be invalid"- Evolution isn't 100% perfect (and can never be) and just because something- either an explanation or evidence- doesn't fit well within the theory doesn't make the whole theory wrong- you've got to knock the very foundations of the theory down. A single fossil that's out of place or a single rock that's vaguely dated doesn't invalidate Evolution as there are plenty more fossils and rocks that "fit"; and unless you find alternate explanations for the arrangements (accounting for *all* the evidence, not just some) you'll have a hard time shaking the Evolutionary foundation.

Actually, it also takes a lot more than a single pebble out of place to convince me too. I certainly don't expect the theory of evolution to explain life, the universe, and everything. My conclusion, though, is that there is a good deal more than a single pebble out of place. Rather, every single piece of evidence in support of an old earth and macroevolution has major problems, either in the interpretation, or the underlying assumptions, or both. Few of such interpretations take into account the possibility of a young earth, or if they do, they forget to question the underlying assumptions. And as such, they do nothing to answer my question of whether the earth is young or old.


Second of all, you yourself don't seem to know what a "transitional fossil" is:

''Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them. ''

Seems pretty transitional to me and should be pretty obvious for even the casual observer- they're all similar and *would* suggest an ancestral end point (us). Never mind the blurry species line- you wanted a gradual line and you have it. Furthermore, don't tell me that I can't *know* this is a gradual line because I didn't see it happen myself- I don't have to, because it's pretty clear to me that a series of gradual fossils could conceivably indicate evolution, because the Theory of Evolution would provide such fossils and they're there.

Any dill could go into a graveyard, dig up all the skulls and arrange them in a line an make a claim that they show evidence of change. They would all be similar, and would suggest an ancestral end point (beginning with the robust and ending with the gracile). Such a presentation would indicated evolution if we didn't know that they all came from the same graveyard. Would you be convinced? I hope not. I hope you would be asking questions about the dates, and about an alternative method to check for ancestry other than just a fuzzy line of similarities. Note that I'm not claiming that the scientists who found the skulls are dishonest. They simply aren't asking the question of whether evolution is true or not.


Thirdly, you have to define "transitional" and that's not always easy. You have to "know" what it looks like before you can declare any fossil as such and not every case is clear-cut. Does "transitional" have to mean that two fossils share 80% of their traits with a newer fossil adding traits of their own (or losing excess traits) or could "transitional" mean that two fossils share only 5% similarities? Fossils that don't necessarily co-incide with previous notions of the transitional fossil theory won't invalidate the entire theory- it just means that maybe the idea of a transitional fossil has to be worked on a little more.

Yes, it seems as though you really do understand another problem with 'transitional'. The fact that the additional discoveries of fossils cannot invalidate the theory suggests that there isn't any alternative way to validate the theory. That means it rest more on the concepts in the heads of the researchers than the actually reality as they find it. So long as they are commited to building their case, they won't have a problem with accomodating any and every discovery into their theory. That would mean that it is non-fasifyable, exactly the same case with a religion.




Furthermore, the fossil record does show quite a lot of sequences- we don't have, for example, a lot of pre-Cambrian elephants or birds in Triassic rock. The sequences aren't always clean and don't always have clear paths in either directions, but they're still best explained by Evolution- otherwise, you've got to come up with a reason about why, for example, an Allosaurus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allosaurus) is 155 million years old and a Tyrannosaurus Rex is 70 million years old- the T-Rex didn't "appear" did it? It had to have come from somewhere, and the Allosaurus is a great transition point (just to clarify, I'm simplifying here to make a point).


Whether these fossils and their locations in the strata are best explained by the evolutionary theory is exactly the issue. That you claim that the evolutionary theory is the best is based on what? Have you analysed the data from a creationist perspective? Can't you see that the claim of 'best fit' depends a good deal on your world view, on whether you have accepted that the world *must* be old, or only accepted that it *might* be old? Sure, the fossils had to come from somewhere, but if that 'somewhere' must be evolution, then it is no wonder that you find an evolutionary conclusion to be the best fit. But that doesn't convince me, because I'm not committed to evolutionary conclusions. They may or may not be right.


Just to back up Kecibukia here: since we're dealing with science, you ought to be reading what's accepted by science, not alternate theories that don't have a shred of scientific legitmacy to them. TalkOrigins is just as biased as the pro-ID sites, but at least TalkOrigins provides sources that have some scientific legitimacy and are thus going to carry a lot more weight in a scientific discussion than any study put forward by the likes of the legitimacy-challenged Henry Morris or Russel Humphreys.


But your definition of 'science' seems to be the side of the clash that is committed to naturalistic explanations. That doesn't make them neutral. So Kecibukia was accusing me of reading biased literature, without realizing that he/she was also reading biased literature.

The definition of 'not a shred of scientific legitimacy' is coming from a biased source, so shouldn't we consider that before agreeing with such a source?
The Talkorigins website does have links to peer reviewed papers (as did the ID site), but that doesn't mean that such papers are written by neutral scientists. Every scientist has his funding and career to consider.

The Talkorgins is clearly as biased as the ID site. That you consider the talkorigins site as having a more weighty scientific legitimacy only tells me that you yourself are biased in your judgement.


Yes, but, unless I'm wrong about the definition of agnosticism, it means that one doesn't believe in a deity but is open to the possibility of one existing, and that definition cannot exist in the scientific method. The method must rule out supernatural explanations (as, if it were agnostic, it couldn't), so it must be atheistic.

The scientific method isn't agnostic. It's not atheistic. It isn't any other belief-based philosophical position. It is neutral. The scientific method can only be applied to things that it can test. Things that it cannot test, like philosophical assumptions, e.g. exitence of God, non-existence of God, involvement of God in the natural world, etc. cannot be tested by the scientific method.

What that means is that anyone can do science, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. It doesn't mean that they cannot hold 'Goddidit' ideas and explanations, or that if they do they cannot be scientists. That is absolute rubbish. The scientific method need not rule out non-testible ideas. It simply must not test ideas that we think cannot be tested.

What it does mean is that the scientific method is very limited in answering questions about the origins. In fact, it cannot. The answers are constructed by humans with pre-existing world views. Such answers do not need to be restricted to testible ideas. But if the ideas are not testible, then they are simply not scientific. But who among us would hold the concept of God to be scientific?

And yet many people don't seem to understand that any idea about the origins is just as unscientific, until such time as we find a way to travel back in time. The idea that we evolved from apes is not testible. Therefore, it isn't scientific. But that doesn't mean that the scientific method forbids us to allow for such a posibility. The method is completely neutral towards such an idea.

Which is strange, cuz that's your comment...


Why is that so strange?


'Where it takes you' being outside science, which is all most people are really trying to tell you.

Constructing scenarios of the origins has more to do with imagination, I shouldn't wonder, and certainly not dependent on the scientific method. The place of science is to look for testible predictions based on those scenarios. So long as I am working with testible predictions, then I am within the bounds of science.

My reply to that is that that means one is entitled to invoke any naturalistic explanation, regardless of how implausible it is, or even ridiculous it is, even if there is not the slightest chance that we can test it, simply because it falls within the category of 'natural'. And this is where I became very skeptical, because I'm not interested in searching for a 'naturalistic explanation for everything'. I'm interested in searching for the truth, regardless of where that takes me.

So when someone invents the idea of dark matter that is resistant to gravitation forces in order to explain some observation naturally, I'm not persuaded by such an argument. To me it is a likely as Santa Claus. It can't be tested, therefore it isn't a scientific explanation.
There literally is no other means to explain things than natural means. Saying "god did it" brings god into the realm of "natural means."

Did I say not worth trying?
Read my points again. He (and others) already said his mind is made up... so what, I discount his opinions and try to 'shove my beliefs down his throat'? sorry, not my way, and not a way to win converts. :cool:


The thing that troubles me, however, is the fact that people can just live comfortably with the idea that some of their friends are going to suffer for eternity. If I was a christian I would do everything in my power to try and save them.

*snip lots of disingenuous wordage*

Wait a second. You are criticising me for reading pro-ID websites, and yet see nothing wrong with running to the talkonorigins website, which is clearly supporting naturalistic evolution? And you have the brass to consider talkonorigins as an authority?

I consider all those peer-reviewed articles and papers to be an authority. You've taken one out of context (as much as you deny it) and claim it as "most people believe" along w/ numerous assumptions about the writers research.

You claim you're a scientist who follows the method but then go on to say you want to introduce non-science.

All the rest are just bytes in the wind trying to justify that.

'nuff said.

The thing that troubles me, however, is the fact that people can just live comfortably with the idea that some of their friends are going to suffer for eternity. If I was a christian I would do everything in my power to try and save them.

What makes you think they need saving? Not all christians believe that God is quite that petty. In fact, I don't think I could worship a God that is.

What are you trying to say? That what the majority thinks is automatically right and true?
Nope
If you take one part of the bible to create a faith but dismiss another part because of that faith you just created, you are somewhat schizoid.
I'll ignore the fact that you're not a psychologist and simply point out that saying that everyone who you think is wrong has a mental disease does sound what a stereotypical nut would say.
An assumption to begin with is that all of life and its variation was possible through natural causes. This is a philosophical position of naturalism. What that means is that since life is unlikely to have arisen, the fact that it is here must mean that it probably only rose once. This concept has led to the idea that if it arose once, then all of life must be related through common ancestry.
I thought the idea of common ancestry came about after Darwin noted similarities between various forms of mammals and after we discovered that we share how ever much DNA we share with apes and the like.

So you can already see how the idea of common ancestry is based on both observation and assumption. Both components are present. We assume that natural causes are sufficient. We observe that life is present. The testible part is where we look to see if modern life forms show similarity, with the hypothesis being that we should find high levels of similarity between organisms that we propose are closely related, with the highest levels between those that are most related.
Natural causes are "assumed" to be sufficient because we don't know if there even are supernatural causes. Though it's not as much an assumption as it is a conclusion based on the evidence.
What I keep pointing out is that where the evolutionary story is based on naturalistic assumptions, it is also no more scientific than creationism. The philosophical assumption that everything can be explained through natural causes is no more testible than the creator.
Every phenomena science has explained has been caused naturally, why should the science community or people in general assume that there are supernatural causes when we've seen no evidence that there are? It's the equivalent of trying to re-design the combustion engine while assuming that the laws of thermodynamics are all wrong. It is possible that they are, but there's a mountain of evidence that says they're not.

So when someone invents the idea of dark matter that is resistant to gravitation forces in order to explain some observation naturally, I'm not persuaded by such an argument. To me it is a likely as Santa Claus. It can't be tested, therefore it isn't a scientific explanation.

How dishonest of you. If you were a scientist as you claim you would be well aware that the existence of dark matter is only considered as a possibility. And it only is considered a possibility because if there is no such substance, then almost everything we know about the universe is wrong, and all the evidence that supported those conclusions is invalid.

I pick evolution because without it, how can one explain why Bacteria becomes reslient to antibiotics over time. Theres just no other way except "God wanted you to die little Jimmy" (unlikely) :confused:

What makes you think they need saving? Not all christians believe that God is quite that petty. In fact, I don't think I could worship a God that is.

So are you one of those good deeds guys?

How dishonest of you. If you were a scientist as you claim you would be well aware that the existence of dark matter is only considered as a possibility. And it only is considered a possibility because if there is no such substance, then almost everything we know about the universe is wrong, and all the evidence that supported those conclusions is invalid.

Precisely. We can also draw predictions from the postulation of dark matter and test them; wheras God, pixies, and fairies are untestable.

I pick evolution because without it, how can one explain why Bacteria becomes reslient to antibiotics over time. Theres just no other way accept "God wanted you to die little Jimmy" (unlikely) :confused:

Ironically, that's exactly the position being taken by the Intelligent Design movement. Michael Behe's new book spends a great deal of time arguing that the malaria virus couldn't have evolved naturally, and so the 'Designer' must have carefully tweaked it hundreds of times to make it an effective killer.

I prefer facts over fairy tales.

It annoys me to no end when people apply some sort of quasi-mystical quality to dark matter. It's really quite simple and uncomplicated. I never really understood the confusion:

Dark matter is matter we can't detect directly. Yet. As our ability to detect matter grows, the amount of dark matter in the universe shrinks because it isn't dark anymore. *sigh*

Precisely. We can also draw predictions from the postulation of dark matter and test them; wheras God, pixies, and fairies are untestable.

But we should take them into account because otherwise we're just being "close-minded" to the possibilities. :rolleyes:

It annoys me to no end when people apply some sort of quasi-mystical quality to dark matter. It's really quite simple and uncomplicated. I never really understood the confusion:

Dark matter is matter we can't detect directly. Yet. As our ability to detect matter grows, the amount of dark matter in the universe shrinks because it isn't dark anymore. *sigh*

And it's only matter we can't detect directly, (and subsequently the reason we call it dark matter) because it does not emit in any of the electromagnetic wavelengths. Which means that it could be anything from dead stars (called black dwarf stars) to black holes, to pretty much any other mundane explanation that we already have. Dark Energy is a significantly more interesting concept, and equally un-mystical.

Incidentally: I'm focusing on Optics and Optical Engineering in UG, though I have no clue what I might do in grad school.

So are you one of those good deeds guys?

There are also those who believe in a sort of universalist salvation, one way or another, though I don't speak for LG. Universalist in the sense that everyone eventually gets into heaven.

So are you one of those good deeds guys?

I defy labels. :)

But I believe Jesus' example is what gets one into Heaven, not the man Himself.

I defy labels. :)

But I believe Jesus' example is what gets one into Heaven, not the man Himself.

*pulls out a stapler and hot glue gun*

We'll see how effectively you defy them, now won't we? ;)

*pulls out a stapler and hot glue gun*

We'll see how effectively you defy them, now won't we? ;)

I'm wearing a teflon coated titanium codpiece. :)

*Evolutionism (Darwinism, whatever) is scientific law. That means: we have some proof that makes this pretty unbelievable, (flowering plants!) but it comes the closest.
*Anyone who takes Darwinism as fact and says Creationists are way too fanatical about their own theory are hypocrites.
*Creationism cannot get a viable hypothesis for the scientific method. I mean, "Some divine being that we can never meet until we die created the universe." How can that be tested [wihout dying]?

If someone shows me step-by-step how either of these theories make it fully through the scientific method, then you can do more then anyone else has.
(Note: Just so i don't get anyone asking, yes I d believe in God. Now don't bug me about it.)

I'm wearing a teflon coated titanium codpiece. :)

Who said I was aiming that low?

Who said I was aiming that low?

Everybody else seems to. :(

Everybody else seems to. :(

I see no reason to emasculate you, at least not in the near future.

Now, hot glue your mouth shut, that's a different story :p

I see no reason to emasculate you, at least not in the near future.

Now, hot glue your mouth shut, that's a different story :p

Ow. I just imagined it. Ow. :(

Now I just imagined me running down the street, waving my hands in the air and mumbling. WOuld people even realize that somethng was wrong with me?

Ow. I just imagined it. Ow. :(

Now I just imagined me running down the street, waving my hands in the air and mumbling. WOuld people even realize that somethng was wrong with me?

This sounds like an experiment in the making. Now just hold still.

I pick evolution because without it, how can one explain why Bacteria becomes reslient to antibiotics over time. Theres just no other way except "God wanted you to die little Jimmy" (unlikely) :confused:
Gentle sir, there is a tremendous difference between microevolution, of which you speak, and macroevolution, the idea that those same bacteria you speak of evolved into the person typing this message.
There are also those who believe in a sort of universalist salvation, one way or another, though I don't speak for LG. Universalist in the sense that everyone eventually gets into heaven.

I know you're not specifically advocating the idea, but thank you anyway. How much sense does it make for a benevolent God to create billions upon billions of people with free will? He says he loves them all but banishes them to a place of eternal torment immediately upon making their first mistake. He provides a means for redemption, but a staggering portion of the population was never exposed to this means of redemption, and there are so many competing beliefs that you can't reasonably be faulted for not believing in Christianity specifically. And that's without even getting into the whole predestination thing.

I don't know that everyone is destined for heaven, but I don't see why not if God loves everyone as he claims.
If someone shows me step-by-step how either of these theories make it fully through the scientific method, then you can do more then anyone else has.
Wait just one second. I may have misunderstood you, but are you admitting that macroevolution doesn't make it all the way through the scientific method? I've never heard of a Darwinian admit to that before...

I defy labels. :)

But I believe Jesus' example is what gets one into Heaven, not the man Himself.

Interesting. So do you believe there is no second chance if you don't act like Jesus?

I'll ignore the fact that you're not a psychologist and simply point out that saying that everyone who you think is wrong has a mental disease does sound what a stereotypical nut would say.This has nothing to do with those people being wrong (although they are). It has something to do with them picking what they feel comfortable with and just pretend the other stuff weren't there. Basing your faith on one part of the bible and on grounds of that faith dismissing another part is just illogical and shows that the respective faith is empty and pointless. And it is clearly an expression of a divided mind if someone does that. Or they are indeed not smart enough to see what they are doing. If one claims the bible to be allegorical then also its god must be just an allegory for something else. And for what? The real gods?

Gentle sir, there is a tremendous difference between microevolution, of which you speak, and macroevolution, the idea that those same bacteria you speak of evolved into the person typing this message.

That's a gross oversimplification. Macroevolution is speciation, the generation of new species from old species. So if you can narrow down what differentiates one species from the next (we generally put the marker at the ability of the new species to breed with the old species) and show such a thing, you've shown macroevolution. This has been done with fruit flies in lab experiments, where the resulting flies in two different groups were shown to be unable to breed with one another. Macroevolution at work.

I know you're not specifically advocating the idea, but thank you anyway. How much sense does it make for a benevolent God to create billions upon billions of people with free will? He says he loves them all but banishes them to a place of eternal torment immediately upon making their first mistake. He provides a means for redemption, but a staggering portion of the population was never exposed to this means of redemption, and there are so many competing beliefs that you can't reasonably be faulted for not believing in Christianity specifically. And that's without even getting into the whole predestination thing.

I don't know that everyone is destined for heaven, but I don't see why not if God loves everyone as he claims.

I'm not a Christian, nor was I raised in any sort of Abrahmic religion. So I don't really know. Salvation isn't something that comes up in Hinduism, largely because we don't believe we need to be saved. On the other hand, if god is good, I don't see why everyone can't get into heaven eventually, one way or another.

Wait just one second. I may have misunderstood you, but are you admitting that macroevolution doesn't make it all the way through the scientific method? I've never heard of a Darwinian admit to that before...

I'm not really sure, but I don't think he's a "Darwinian."

Gentle sir, there is a tremendous difference between microevolution, of which you speak, and macroevolution, the idea that those same bacteria you speak of evolved into the person typing this message.
Wrong. Microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing but on different scales. That is not a tremendous difference.
Wait just one second. I may have misunderstood you, but are you admitting that macroevolution doesn't make it all the way through the scientific method? I've never heard of a Darwinian admit to that before...

No, he's asking someone to show how the theory of evolution and how the "theory" of intelligent design "make it fully through the scientific method".

You most certainly were under an obligation to acknowledge the evolutionnews link. I thought you had an academic background?
You should have cited the source you actually used. Otherwise you could end up taking the blame for an error someone else has made.


Not to mention that using someone else's material without acknowledgement is plagiarism.

Which is first-year stuff...

*snip*There are no "Darwinians". Darwin is long dead and so are most of his ideas. And the advent of genetics has changed the entire view on evolution anyways. And could you please again point out to me the difference between micro- and macro-evolution? After all we are just looking at changes in genes in both cases.

There are no "Darwinians". Darwin is long dead and so are most of his ideas. And the advent of genetics has changed the entire view on evolution anyways. And could you please again point out to me the difference between micro- and macro-evolution? After all we are just looking at changes in genes in both cases.

Be fair: Young Earth Creationism is lagging about 150 years behind in terms of science. It's only natural that they should refer to 'Darwinism'.

I'm not a Christian, nor was I raised in any sort of Abrahmic religion. So I don't really know. Salvation isn't something that comes up in Hinduism, largely because we don't believe we need to be saved. On the other hand, if god is good, I don't see why everyone can't get into heaven eventually, one way or another.

Yes. There is no such thing as eternal damnation (or for that matter even eternal salvation) in Hinduism.

Interesting. So do you believe there is no second chance if you don't act like Jesus?

'Act like Jesus' is a bit strong. But in His life, He gave pretty strong indicators on what He considered important in living a decent life. I also think He made it clear that it's never too late to start. He forgave and overlooked an awful lot that many so-called christians don't anymore.

Yes. There is no such thing as eternal damnation (or for that matter even eternal salvation) in Hinduism.

Yup. Just the eternal cycle of life, death, and rebirth. And karma. Really, strip away the caste system and the sexism and Hinduism's a pretty ok religion.

*Evolutionism (Darwinism, whatever) is scientific law. That means: we have some proof that makes this pretty unbelievable, (flowering plants!) but it comes the closest.

Er, not quite. Evolution is a theory. Laws are archaic constructs that really serve almost no purpose in science(Damn reality never being to consistent). However, in science, Theories are very well supported predictions that are consistent, reliable, and very importantly falsifiable.


*Anyone who takes Darwinism as fact and says Creationists are way too fanatical about their own theory are hypocrites.


Creationism is not a theory. Theories are tested. Theories make accurate predictions. Creationism does not do this, nor has it been tested, nor has evidence been collected, nor has even a simple hypothesis created involving it. Creationists want their little conjecture be accepted as theory without going through the work needed. In short, they are being lazy and idiotic about it.


*Creationism cannot get a viable hypothesis for the scientific method. I mean, "Some divine being that we can never meet until we die created the universe." How can that be tested [wihout dying]?



Well, even if it is possible, nobody has done so yet. Why should we accept a conjecture as theory if no one has even made a hypothesis involving it yet?


If someone shows me step-by-step how either of these theories make it fully through the scientific method, then you can do more then anyone else has.
(Note: Just so i don't get anyone asking, yes I d believe in God. Now don't bug me about it.)
[/quote]

Well, here we go. It's a tad different for each theory how it works out, but more or less the process is the same.

First, a phenomena is observed. A hypothesis is created that explains why that phenomena is occurring. The hypothesis is tested. Chances are, the hypothesis is wrong in some way or another. It is then changed, or scrapped all together, depending. The hypothesis is then retested. And rewritten/reworked if necessary. Wash, rinse, and repeat. Once your hypothesis seems to be in order, you submit it in a journal/publish it for peer review. Then, other scientists will review your work, check to make sure you had sound reasoning and testing, and ensure that the conclusion actually follows the testing. If everything is in order, and there is agreement among the community that your hypothesis is indeed accurate, congratulations! You have a theory. If not, well, back to the drawing room floor with ye! Your silly hypothesis has no place among the theories!

As such, the ToE has gone through this(As well as being changed with new information being gathered). No form of Creationism has even created a testable hypothesis. Thus, it is not a theory.

The question of how one can prove that an intelligent being made the universe keeps coming up. I have a way:

Make your own. If you can do it, you have successfully proven that it can be done and thus given strong evidence that maybe it was. :)

The question of how one can prove that an intelligent being made the universe keeps coming up. I have a way:

Make your own. If you can do it, you have successfully proven that it can be done and thus given strong evidence that maybe it was. :)

Not really. You've proven that it's possible, but there still wouldn't be strong evidence that it was.

That's sort of a parallel to the simulated reality argument that Jean Boudrillard (sp?) came up with.
Basically if you can prove that we can generate a completely simulated reality such that you can't tell you're in said simulated reality, you have strong evidence to suggest that we ourselves are within a simulated reality.

Not really. You've proven that it's possible, but there still wouldn't be strong evidence that it was.

That's sort of a parallel to the simulated reality argument that Jean Boudrillard (sp?) came up with.
Basically if you can prove that we can generate a completely simulated reality such that you can't tell you're in said simulated reality, you have strong evidence to suggest that we ourselves are within a simulated reality.

Of course, if one were in a perfectly simulated reality, is it 'simulated' anymore?

Of course, if one were in a perfectly simulated reality, is it 'simulated' anymore?

Hard to say, really. It's certainly simulated for any outside observer, but I suppose it really depends on how we define simulated.

Hard to say, really. It's certainly simulated for any outside observer, but I suppose it really depends on how we define simulated.

What wold someone in that simulation think of that outside observer? Would that observer be God?

Back to making universes- I hold to my 'very strong evidence' descriptor and here's why: though science offers a fairly sound theory as to the beginning of the universe, there is nothing as to the origin of it. If one creates a universe(thus proving that it can be done), and there are no competing theories as to the birth of new universes without the action of a sentient, then I'd label that 'very strong evidence'. Not irrefutible, but if I see someone make a universe, I'd safely assume they were made until I see a random one. :)

That's a gross oversimplification. Macroevolution is speciation, the generation of new species from old species. So if you can narrow down what differentiates one species from the next (we generally put the marker at the ability of the new species to breed with the old species) and show such a thing, you've shown macroevolution. This has been done with fruit flies in lab experiments, where the resulting flies in two different groups were shown to be unable to breed with one another. Macroevolution at work.

I know it was an oversimplification; that was the idea. I was reasonably certain that someone would fly in defense of the "true" definition of macroevolution. And it turns out I was right.

Now a couple of issues with your fruit flies. First of all, a fly is a fly is a fly. As you said, scientists use breeding tendencies as a major criterion in determining species. But I would call that an oversimplification; a bit more than a technicality, but not by a whole lot. What it boils down to is one fly giving birth to another fly. Now let's see that fly start giving birth to different flies who give birth to different flies who give birth to different flies until it's not a fly anymore, but a crustacean, for instance. That's along the lines of what the theory of evolution suggests happens, right? But more importantly, you must be sure that each new variance of fly is better suited to the environment than the one before it, as natural selection demands. So until that happens, there's really no concrete proof that evolution as the origin of life on Earth is even possible.

And second of all, proof that macroevolution can occur (by your definition, anyway) on an infinitesimal scale is by no means proof that it actually did happen on the massive scale demanded by the theory of evolution.
There are no "Darwinians". Darwin is long dead and so are most of his ideas. And the advent of genetics has changed the entire view on evolution anyways.
Semantics. Do you have a different term you'd prefer I use?
Be fair: Young Earth Creationism is lagging about 150 years behind in terms of science. It's only natural that they should refer to 'Darwinism'.
First of all, I'm not a creationist, young earth or otherwise. And second of all, it's this high and mighty attitude expressed by entirely too many of insert preferred terminology to describe proponents of evolution as the origin of complex life on Earth here that causes most debates to degenerate into mindless bickering and namecalling.
Not really. You've proven that it's possible, but there still wouldn't be strong evidence that it was.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It works the same with the theory of evolution. Evidence that a few flies can mutate slightly in some laboratory is not strong evidence that it happened in the past, even on such a small scale as shown in this case. In order to have true evidence of evolution, you have to actually observe it in practice. And again, I'm not talking about flies. I'm talking about a fish evolving into an amphibian. Or a single-celled organism evolving into an organism with multiple organs and organ systems (which is where my biggest problem with evolution lies -- a heart is useless without blood vessels, and blood vessels are useless without a heart. They would have had to have "evolved" simultaneously to be of any use to one another.)

Flies cannot give birth to crustaceans by any stretch of evolutionary theory.

Flies cannot give birth to crustaceans by any stretch of evolutionary theory.

Well, of course not. they're a wee bit separated in terms of development. As a more likely analogy, one could imagine some sort of pre-weasel mammal develop into weasels and ferrets each fitting into more specialized niches in the ecosystem.

I know it was an oversimplification; that was the idea. I was reasonably certain that someone would fly in defense of the "true" definition of macroevolution. And it turns out I was right.

Now a couple of issues with your fruit flies. First of all, a fly is a fly is a fly.
Eh no. There are different types of flies.
As you said, scientists use breeding tendencies as a major criterion in determining species.
I thought that was the only criteria. A group of animals that can successfully interbreed are a species.
But I would call that an oversimplification; a bit more than a technicality, but not by a whole lot. What it boils down to is one fly giving birth to another fly. Now let's see that fly start giving birth to different flies who give birth to different flies who give birth to different flies until it's not a fly anymore, but a crustacean, for instance. That's along the lines of what the theory of evolution suggests happens, right?
Given enough time it could happen. In fact, given enough time it will happen, but that's maths, not biology. Well, it won't be a fly giving birth to the crustacean.
But more importantly, you must be sure that each new variance of fly is better suited to the environment than the one before it, as natural selection demands.
Eh, no. Natural selection doesn't demand anything.
So until that happens, there's really no concrete proof that evolution as the origin of life on Earth is even possible.
Since evolution is life forms changing over time it quite obviously has nothing to do with the origin of life.
And second of all, proof that macroevolution can occur (by your definition, anyway) on an infinitesimal scale is by no means proof that it actually did happen on the massive scale demanded by the theory of evolution.
You know you're ignoring a lot of evidence for evolution right? There's more than just flies in a lab.
First of all, I'm not a creationist, young earth or otherwise. And second of all, it's this high and mighty attitude expressed by entirely too many of insert preferred terminology to describe proponents of evolution as the origin of complex life on Earth here that causes most debates to degenerate into mindless bickering and namecalling.

Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It can't. There has to be life before evolution can occur.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It works the same with the theory of evolution. Evidence that a few flies can mutate slightly in some laboratory is not strong evidence that it happened in the past, even on such a small scale as shown in this case.
How fortunate that there more evidence than that.
In order to have true evidence of evolution, you have to actually observe it in practice.
Nylon eating bacteria.
And again, I'm not talking about flies. I'm talking about a fish evolving into an amphibian. Or a single-celled organism evolving into an organism with multiple organs and organ systems
That obviously wouldn't happen in one step, as with the flies.
(which is where my biggest problem with evolution lies -- a heart is useless without blood vessels, and blood vessels are useless without a heart. They would have had to have "evolved" simultaneously to be of any use to one another.)
So? Just because it's massively unlikely doesn't make it impossible.

I know it was an oversimplification; that was the idea. I was reasonably certain that someone would fly in defense of the "true" definition of macroevolution. And it turns out I was right.

Now a couple of issues with your fruit flies. First of all, a fly is a fly is a fly. As you said, scientists use breeding tendencies as a major criterion in determining species. But I would call that an oversimplification; a bit more than a technicality, but not by a whole lot. What it boils down to is one fly giving birth to another fly. Now let's see that fly start giving birth to different flies who give birth to different flies who give birth to different flies until it's not a fly anymore, but a crustacean, for instance. That's along the lines of what the theory of evolution suggests happens, right? But more importantly, you must be sure that each new variance of fly is better suited to the environment than the one before it, as natural selection demands. So until that happens, there's really no concrete proof that evolution as the origin of life on Earth is even possible.

You do realize that the variation in the genetic code is somewhere in the order of the number of differences between chimpanzees and humans, do you not?

In reality, the taxonomic system is arbitrary, and not in any way rigid. Really, the system is set up as people saying "Alright, this goes here!" It is not an aspect of the natural world, but instead a system that describes it. A very large, very important difference.


And second of all, proof that macroevolution can occur (by your definition, anyway) on an infinitesimal scale is by no means proof that it actually did happen on the massive scale demanded by the theory of evolution.
Well, first off, the Theory of evolution doesn't demand that. Infact, that's not even really the point of the theory of evolution at all. It is the result of evolution, not the purpose nor the reason there of. Period. Fin'. That is a model constructed not only using the theory of evolution, but also mountains of evidence from various fields.

[quote]
Semantics. Do you have a different term you'd prefer I use?

The point he is trying to get at is that Darwinian evolution is not an accurate model these days(for those whom use it). It is far to simplified, does not explain why it occurs, and really is not as accurate as contemporary theories. It's not semantics at all, where one argues on the meaning of words, but instead arguing that Darwinian evolution is just not a correct term to use, at all, in this case, as there are very few people who really consider it as an accurate model any more. However, for explaining theories of evolution, it is far simpler and easier to explain Darwinian evolution, than current theories.

It's similar to Newtonian Gravity, really. It has been proven false, and among those whom use theories of gravity, it is never used anymore. However, among the lay-men, it is simpler to explain, than Relativity or Quantum theories, and for most purposes is still accurate.


Ding ding ding! We have a winner. It works the same with the theory of evolution. Evidence that a few flies can mutate slightly in some laboratory is not strong evidence that it happened in the past, even on such a small scale as shown in this case. In order to have true evidence of evolution, you have to actually observe it in practice. And again, I'm not talking about flies. I'm talking about a fish evolving into an amphibian. Or a single-celled organism evolving into an organism with multiple organs and organ systems (which is where my biggest problem with evolution lies -- a heart is useless without blood vessels, and blood vessels are useless without a heart. They would have had to have "evolved" simultaneously to be of any use to one another.)

Well, you *might* have a case if it were only the flies in the laboratory. However, it is been noted *several* times in nature. The nylon bacteria is a perfect example, as it is a species that only recently arose, in nature no less, and has been replicated later in laboratories. Others include new species arising in nature, from insects to plants to new species of bacteria. As well, Ring Species are a very good example of how evolution works, and how creationism is false(As in creationism, no species should be able to reproduce with another, but in Ring species, that is not the case).

Really, I don't see where this magical barrier people seem to be putting up that states that animals can only evolve so far, but no farther.

Well, of course not. they're a wee bit separated in terms of development. As a more likely analogy, one could imagine some sort of pre-weasel mammal develop into weasels and ferrets each fitting into more specialized niches in the ecosystem.

And, infact, if this were to occur, it would be some very strong evidence against evolution. Over time, it is technically possible that a crustacean-like organism would arise(Though it would never be a true crustacean), but it would not be a "BAM!" type of thing. It would take many, many generations of slow changes and alterations over the general populations, with the gaining of aquatic traits and crustacean-like traits of said population. Eventually, this *could* result in a crustacean like organism. Key word is could. There is no end result in evolution.

'Act like Jesus' is a bit strong. But in His life, He gave pretty strong indicators on what He considered important in living a decent life. I also think He made it clear that it's never too late to start. He forgave and overlooked an awful lot that many so-called christians don't anymore.

So if you don't act in the way you think Jesus would have wanted, do you then get eternal suffering?

So if you don't act in the way you think Jesus would have wanted, do you then get eternal suffering?
In that case, I think Jesus wanted to party a lot.

So if you don't act in the way you think Jesus would have wanted, do you then get eternal suffering?

That's the big mystery, isn't it?

Suppose that in our moment of deaths, our perceptions turn inward after being cut off from external stimuli. Without those external stimuli, time loses all meaning. Those last few moments, as your brain's neurons fire their last stretch into a functional eternity in which you are literally your own universe. All you have to shape this universe are your own beliefs, memories and subconscious. If such an awareness could be considered an 'afterlife', then it could be argued that everyone gets exactly what they know they deserve: people who believe in Heaven or Hell go to Heaven or Hells that fit their experiences and conceptions of them. Almost any afterlife is possible, or none at all. They would be shaped by the individual.

It's an interesting notion, isn't it? Maybe Jesus knew what it took to make a fairly tolerable afterlife.

And, infact, if this were to occur, it would be some very strong evidence against evolution. Over time, it is technically possible that a crustacean-like organism would arise(Though it would never be a true crustacean), but it would be a "BAM!" type of thing. It would take many, many generations of slow changes and alterations over the general populations, with the gaining of aquatic traits and crustacean-like traits of said population. Eventually, this *could* result in a crustacean like organism. Key word is could. There is no end result in evolution.

:confused:

First of all, there could be no 'Bam!'. A fly won't lay lobster eggs, no matter what you do to it. Evolution is for the most part gradual, with sudden spurts caused by unusual events such as cataclysms and environmental isolation.

Going back to the flies and crustaceans, one didn't spring from the other. They came from a common ancestor. And even then, there were many intermediate steps. Imagine a reverse river. As you head downstream, the river forks into tributaries that fork again into still others. SOmewhere along that river, a fork occured. After a few dozen more forks, flies appeared. Back at that original fork, traveling a different tributary, and through several dozen other forks, lobsters appeared. Now those flies and lobsters, though originally having a common ancestor, are now thousands of generations and dozens of species removed. To bring those forks of the river together again would be no easy or quick feat. I daresay it would probably take as many generation as it did to separate them.

On the other hand, though mammoths and elephants are separated, I bet if one had a thousand years to breed the right traits, one could make a mammoth out of a species of elephant after 30 or 40 generations. *nod*

:confused:

First of all, there could be no 'Bam!'. A fly won't lay lobster eggs, no matter what you do to it. Evolution is for the most part gradual, with sudden spurts caused by unusual events such as cataclysms and environmental isolation.


I forgot to add the "not". I tend to do that from time to time. It should read(and will in a second), "It would not be a 'BAM!' situation". My mistake.


Going back to the flies and crustaceans, one didn't spring from the other. They came from a common ancestor. And even then, there were many intermediate steps. Imagine a reverse river. As you head downstream, the river forks into tributaries that fork again into still others. SOmewhere along that river, a fork occured after a few dozen more forks, flies appeared. Back at that original fork, traveling a different tributary, and through several dozen other forks, lobsters appeared. Now those flies and lobsters, though originally having a common ancestor, are now thousands of generations and dozens of species removed. To bring those forks of the river together again would be no easy or quick feat. I daresay it would probably take as many generation as it did to separate them.

I would say more generations. Flies are quite a bit derived from the where the original split occurred. It would require the loss of several of the gained traits, as many of such traits may hinder the aquatic living, adaption of current traits(I suppose it is possible that the wings on flies could in time evolve into fins, perhaps), as well as the gaining of several new traits. This would definitely not be easy, quick, or simple to do.


On the other hand, though mammoths and elephants are separated, I bet if one had a thousand years to breed the right traits, one could make a mammoth out of a species of elephant after 30 or 40 generations. *nod*

Well, yes and no. Mammoths are very similar to elephants, and you could get something that very closely resembles a mammoth. It wouldn't necessarily be a mammoth, but it would be a mammoth like organism.

And for the math, a generation is about 25 years. Give or take, of course. That would be about 1000 years-ish. Naturally, it would probably take longer for that to occur, maybe around 10 or 15 times longer, give or take(Although it is not a guarentee, I am simply stating a generality of how long it would likely take), however under selective pressures, we could produce one in such a short time.

Or we could find genetic material, and breed it with modern elephants, in a sense.

I forgot to add the "not". I tend to do that from time to time. It should read(and will in a second), "It would not be a 'BAM!' situation". My mistake.


I would say more generations. Flies are quite a bit derived from the where the original split occurred. It would require the loss of several of the gained traits, as many of such traits may hinder the aquatic living, adaption of current traits(I suppose it is possible that the wings on flies could in time evolve into fins, perhaps), as well as the gaining of several new traits. This would definitely not be easy, quick, or simple to do.



The hard part will be making the fly taste good in butter. :)

The hard part will be making the fly taste good in butter. :)

Mayonaise, you heathen!

Mayonaise, you heathen!

Mayonaise. Is it an euphemism for Atum's ejaculate again?

Mayonaise. Is it an euphemism for Atum's ejaculate again?

Funny how it always comes back to Atum's ejaculate, eh?

Funny how it always comes back to Atum's ejaculate, eh?

If this a sign from Atum, I think that you're his prophet....

funny thing though, some people said that some stouts tasted like horse semen,... how do they know, HAVE THEY DONE SOMETHING TO HORSES THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT?

What's the taste of the universe?

What's the taste of the universe?

Purple.

If this a sign from Atum, I think that you're his prophet....

funny thing though, some people said that some stouts tasted like horse semen,... how do they know, HAVE THEY DONE SOMETHING TO HORSES THAT I DIDN'T KNOW ABOUT?

What's the taste of the universe?

The universe tastes like chicken.

Semen doesn't taste like a purple chicken,... or a chicken purple.

Not... that... I... know... what... semen... tastes... like...

I thought that was the only criteria. A group of animals that can successfully interbreed are a species.

A horse and a donkey can breed to produce a mule, but they are not of the same species.
Since evolution is life forms changing over time it quite obviously has nothing to do with the origin of life.

You're right. I would have used the term 'origin of species,' but I know how much you guys hate being associated with that Darwin guy. :p
Again, evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life. It can't. There has to be life before evolution can occur.
I corrected myself in this 2nd statement by using the term 'complex life.' The first prokaryotic organism that sprang to life, fully functional and able to reproduce, by accident was not a result of evolution (though of the same general doctrine of accidents). But all other life after that was supposedly a result of evolution.
Nylon-eating bacteria.
Great, a bacteria evolving into another bacteria. Microevolution. Or are they different species because they can't breed with each other?
That obviously wouldn't happen in one step, as with the flies.

Hence why I used the term "evolved" rather than "gave birth to." I'm not as dumb as most people like to stereotype ID proponents as being.
So? Just because it's massively unlikely doesn't make it impossible.

I really like this statement. I'll get back to this later.
The point he is trying to get at is that Darwinian evolution is not an accurate model these days(for those whom use it). It is far to simplified, does not explain why it occurs, and really is not as accurate as contemporary theories. It's not semantics at all, where one argues on the meaning of words, but instead arguing that Darwinian evolution is just not a correct term to use, at all, in this case, as there are very few people who really consider it as an accurate model any more. However, for explaining theories of evolution, it is far simpler and easier to explain Darwinian evolution, than current theories.

It's similar to Newtonian Gravity, really. It has been proven false, and among those whom use theories of gravity, it is never used anymore. However, among the lay-men, it is simpler to explain, than Relativity or Quantum theories, and for most purposes is still accurate.

I hope you'll forgive me for using a simplified term. I'm not a scientist. But the current theory of evolution does suggest gradual change from species to species based on random genetic mutation that is propogated through natural selection, right? Again, a simplification, but please correct me if I'm way off track here.

Now back to this statement:
So? Just because it's massively unlikely doesn't make it impossible.

This really is the crux of the argument between evolution and intelligent design. Either the person typing this message came by accident through billions of years of random genetic mutation, or the person typing this message was in some way designed or created by a supernatural force of some kind. The question is which of the two is more likely. I choose the latter for a number of reasons.

As a person working in healthcare, I am reasonably well-acquainted with the workings of the human body; moreso than most, anyway. I look at how interdependent each tissue, each organ, and each organ system is with each other and I simply think the likelihood of that all being an accident is too staggeringly small for me to believe. The heart for instance could not function without a sinoatrial node. There'd be nowhere for the electrical impulse to originate from. It also could not function without such a specifically arranged set of blood vessels. The circulatory system in general could not function without the following organ systems:

Respiratory system -- there'd be no way to transfer O2 into the bloodstream and CO2 out of the bloodstream.
Renal system -- the pH of the bloodstream could not be properly controlled
Skeletal system -- there'd be nothing to produce red blood cells
Integumentary system (skin) -- there'd be no effective way of regulating body temperature
Endocrine system -- there'd be nothing to stimulate the production of red blood cells, nor would we be able to increase cardiac output to react to danger
Muscular system -- blood would circulate poorly causing clots to develop
Lymph system -- excess fluid would build up in the bloodstream

Each and every one of those problems would kill a person long before he was able to reproduce. If you'd like to know how, I'd be happy to go through the list one at a time. And this is only the few things I could think of off the top of my head for a single organ system. The interdependency of the body's organs goes much much deeper than this, and each organ is also dependent on each tissue that comprises it. So basically, removing what may seem to be minor components of people makes life impossible. The likelihood of all of this randomly evolving as it has is so terribly unlikely that I'm inclined to believe the evolution was guided in some way.

However, whoever brought up the multiverse hypothesis did bring up a very interesting point. If there really are an infinite number of universes, it is entirely possible that this just happens to be that one universe where everything evolved just perfectly enough to lead to intelligent life. It really makes you think. Well it makes me think, anyway. I realize that most people are completely set in their beliefs, but I'm willing to consider other peoples' viewpoints -- no really, I swear. ;)

A horse and a donkey can breed to produce a mule, but they are not of the same species.
I don't know about the other guy, but I thought there was more than successful interbreeding. They might be in the same family somewhere along the line, but in the is someing is different enough for them to be a differnt species?

Then again aren't mules unable to breed, and as such, not a seccessful interbreeding of a horse and donkey?


Correct me if I am wrong though.

A horse and a donkey can breed to produce a mule, but they are not of the same species.
A mule is not a viable offspring, they're all infertile. As are Jennys.

You're right. I would have used the term 'origin of species,' but I know how much you guys hate being associated with that Darwin guy. :p
There's more to evolution than Darwin. Much like there's more to ID than Behe.
I corrected myself in this 2nd statement by using the term 'complex life.' The first prokaryotic organism that sprang to life, fully functional and able to reproduce, by accident was not a result of evolution (though of the same general doctrine of accidents). But all other life after that was supposedly a result of evolution.
Based on the evidence, yes.

Great, a bacteria evolving into another bacteria. Microevolution. Or are they different species because they can't breed with each other?
As has already been pointed out, microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, only on different scales.

I hope you'll forgive me for using a simplified term. I'm not a scientist. But the current theory of evolution does suggest gradual change from species to species based on random genetic mutation that is propogated through natural selection, right? Again, a simplification, but please correct me if I'm way off track here.
Not exactly. Natural selection is the idea that favourable mutations are more likely to be spread than unfavourable ones.


[FONT="Georgia"]This really is the crux of the argument between evolution and intelligent design.
There's that and the total lack of real evidence to support ID.
Either the person typing this message came by accident through billions of years of random genetic mutation, or the person typing this message was in some way designed or created by a supernatural force of some kind. The question is which of the two is more likely. I choose the latter for a number of reasons.
The vast majority of experts choose the former.

The likelihood of all of this randomly evolving as it has is so terribly unlikely that I'm inclined to believe the evolution was guided in some way.

It might seem unlikely, but just try to imagine how many mutations there have been. Hundreds of billions at the very least. If not trillions. That makes it much much less improbable.

It might seem unlikely, but just try to imagine how many mutations there have been. Hundreds of billions at the very least. If not trillions. That makes it much much less improbable.

I'm going to bring up my sand analogy.

There is a container with sand, and sand falls out of a hole in the bottom, falling and creating a pile at the bottom.

Now, someone comes along, sees the pile of sand, and after studying the pile of sand, notes that it is statistically impossible that each grain of sand is exactly where it is at that very moment. He then concludes that each grain of sand was placed there by another, as it is the only logically explanation as to why each grain of sand is exactly where it is. If you were to duplicate it, the chances of each grain of sand ending up exactly where it is with the actual pile of sand are so astronomically low, that you deem it impossible.

And yet, the pile of sand was formed randomly. The notion of design is simply the person's mind not comprehending that yes, the pile can rise randomly, and infact did. It could have formed in any other formation of each grain being elsewhere. And if restarted, it would.

Out of curiosity, what is the forumla that calculates the probability that "each grain of sand is exactly where it is"?

Out of curiosity, what is the forumla that calculates the probability that "each grain of sand is exactly where it is"?

I have no idea. It would depend on several factors, really, but if you just want a pure random it would depend on the exact number of grains of sand. And I have no intention of making a useless formula for a hypothetical situation that doesn't really enhance the point of the analogy.

;)

I don't know about the other guy, but I thought there was more than successful interbreeding. They might be in the same family somewhere along the line, but in the is someing is different enough for them to be a differnt species?

Then again aren't mules unable to breed, and as such, not a seccessful interbreeding of a horse and donkey?


Correct me if I am wrong though.

Two organisms are the same species if the look alike, are found naturally and can have offspring that can be found naturally (a liger is not a new species because tigers and lions are geographically isolated), and can produce fertile offspring.

A mule is not a viable offspring, they're all infertile. As are Jennys.

Hinnies.

Don't ignore the fact that random genetic mutation is not the only process to cause evolution. There is also genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection, and artificial selection (the reason for the existence of the chicken).

I'm not anti-religion, nor am I a Pastafarian, but where are the teachings of the Flying Spaghetti Monster represented in school curiculums, or the Bokononist cosmology, which is really just a pack of foma? Seriously, I'm a Jain myself, but you can't fill any uncertainty with another uncertainty. All non-testable religious explanations for the origins of life should be taught in theology classes. Science and religion aren't mutually exclusive, anyway.

Congratulations - you've just proven that evolution is wrong. Here, have a cookie :fluffle:


...no, it wasn't the insane people in the links, it is the fact that if evolution did exist, NSG would have evolved past these threads ;)

GOD WILLS IT!


Agree with you I do. And besides, evolutionists really have no proof at all. They come up with crap about nothing but they have no basis for their therioes, where as creationists have scientific and historical facts, not to mention witnesses, And did anyone see a fish evolving into a monkey? Noooooo.....

--Sand analogy--
We already covered this with a deck of cards analogy. If your pile of sand came out arranged as a perfect replica of Leonard Nemoy's face, you'd probably assume that some intelligence designed it, wouldn't you? It's possible that it came about randomly, sure; but if you tried to convince anyone of that fact they'd never believe you. And I won't argue that evolution is completely impossible, just that it's so unlikely that I'm inclined to believe that life was designed.
As has already been pointed out, microevolution and macroevolution are the same thing, only on different scales.

Is a 9mm pistol the same as a .50 calibre machine gun?
Not exactly. Natural selection is the idea that favourable mutations are more likely to be spread than unfavourable ones.
Yes, I understand this. Isn't that basically what I said? The genetic mutations that cause evolution are furthered because they are supposed to make the organism better adapted to survival and reproduction.
The vast majority of experts choose the former.
Well good for the vast majority of experts. Scientific progress would be impossible if everyone agreed with your vast majority of experts on every subject.
It might seem unlikely, but just try to imagine how many mutations there have been. Hundreds of billions at the very least. If not trillions. That makes it much much less improbable.
The first problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations lead to death or at the very least, an inability to reproduce. Cancer is a genetic mutation. So is down syndrome. So are a lot (probably the majority) of birth defects.

The second problem, and the point I was originally trying to make, is that the interdependency of the human body means that those features could not have evolved gradually. It's all or nothing. You can't say that a circulatory system evolved and then a respiratory system evolved and then a renal system evolved because they are useless without each other.
Don't ignore the fact that random genetic mutation is not the only process to cause evolution. There is also genetic drift, gene flow, natural selection, and artificial selection (the reason for the existence of the chicken).
I'm not ignoring anything. I've mentioned natural selection (which I'm happy to recognize as a perfectly coherent theory). I'm not familiar with the other things you mentioned. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

Is a 9mm pistol the same as a .50 calibre machine gun?

Yes; Neither can play the piano. :)

I'm not ignoring anything. I've mentioned natural selection (which I'm happy to recognize as a perfectly coherent theory). I'm not familiar with the other things you mentioned. Perhaps you'd care to enlighten me?

Artificial selection is when humans breed organisms for certain traits. I'm sure you won't deny this occurs, but its effect on overall evolution has been pretty small.

Gene flow is a term used to describe when members of one population, which might have different alleles or allele frequencies, move to another population and breed with the members of that population. Once again, this is irrelevant and you probably won't deny that it occurs.

Genetic drift is a major evolutionary process in small populations. It can occur when a part of a population, which is more likely to have odd allele frequencies than the whole due to probability, breaks off and forms a new population with the same strange allele frequencies. This is known as the founder effect. It can also occur when a population is very small and is inbred. This accelerates evolution by promoting homozygosity in either dominant or recessive alleles. This is known as inbreeding depression and in closely tied to bottlenecking. See the relevant wikipedia article.

The last process is probably responsible for the evolution of modern man from early hominids and australopithecines due to a bottleneck in Ethiopia.

[FONT="Georgia"]The first problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations lead to death or at the very least, an inability to reproduce. Cancer is a genetic mutation. So is down syndrome. So are a lot (probably the majority) of birth defects.

The overwhelming majority of mutations lead to...absolutely nothing! Underwhelming, isn't it? But there's a chance that every mutation will lead to good and bad things.

Sorry to nit-pick, but cancer is heavily influenced by the environment and choice of eating and exercise habits, and Down's Syndrome is caused by non-disjunction during meiosis, not mutation.

We already covered this with a deck of cards analogy. If your pile of sand came out arranged as a perfect replica of Leonard Nemoy's face, you'd probably assume that some intelligence designed it, wouldn't you? It's possible that it came about randomly, sure; but if you tried to convince anyone of that fact they'd never believe you. And I won't argue that evolution is completely impossible, just that it's so unlikely that I'm inclined to believe that life was designed.
Ah, so all those grilled cheese sandwiches with the face of the Virgin Mary on them were indeed a sign from God? How about Mickey Moo? Obviously the very real mouse ears on the side of that cow MUST have been designed and is a sign that God favores Disney (at least when it comes to cows).

And actually it's not that unlikely. In terms of actual probability, it's fairly good. Not to mention that, guess what, it hit.

Is a 9mm pistol the same as a .50 calibre machine gun?
Actually, yes. Both are guns. They use chemical reactions to fire points of lead at a point forward of the barrel at a high rate of speed with force. The designs are also pretty much the same.

Yes, I understand this. Isn't that basically what I said? The genetic mutations that cause evolution are furthered because they are supposed to make the organism better adapted to survival and reproduction.
No, not really. You're putting the cart before the horse. Genetic mutations happen all the time. Sometimes they help a creature compeat better, sometimes they do not. Most of the time they do neither. They aren't supposed to 'help' anything because there is no reason for them. All that natural selection says is that 'good' mutations tend to spread faster due to the critter being able to compeat with other like critters better.

The first problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations lead to death or at the very least, an inability to reproduce. Cancer is a genetic mutation. So is down syndrome. So are a lot (probably the majority) of birth defects.
See above.

The second problem, and the point I was originally trying to make, is that the interdependency of the human body means that those features could not have evolved gradually. It's all or nothing. You can't say that a circulatory system evolved and then a respiratory system evolved and then a renal system evolved because they are useless without each other.
Ah, the old irriducibly complex argument. I'm sorry, but this has been debunked so many times now it fails to be funny. Look, you are seeing a mid-point of these systems, they work together now of course. Back in time, they may have been something different, nor did they all evolve in a vaccum, one at a time. Take the eye (which creationists love to use). They point out that no one can use half an eye, except that we never had half an eye. We have had stages of eyes starting with light sensitive pigments that proved useful and evolved from there.

We already covered this with a deck of cards analogy. If your pile of sand came out arranged as a perfect replica of Leonard Nemoy's face, you'd probably assume that some intelligence designed it, wouldn't you? It's possible that it came about randomly, sure; but if you tried to convince anyone of that fact they'd never believe you. And I won't argue that evolution is completely impossible, just that it's so unlikely that I'm inclined to believe that life was designed.
If you make enough piles of sand eventually every possible outcome will happen, including Leonard Nemoy's face.

Is a 9mm pistol the same as a .50 calibre machine gun?
In the sense that one is a scaled up version of the other, yes. Though most 9mm handguns are semi automatic, and most .50 calibre machine guns are fully automatic. But it's not a perfect analogy. A better would be "is a regular 9mm handgun the same as a functioning model made 100 times larger?".
Yes, I understand this. Isn't that basically what I said? The genetic mutations that cause evolution are furthered because they are supposed to make the organism better adapted to survival and reproduction.
There's a subtle distinction. The genetic mutations aren't supposed to better adapt the organism to its environment. The mutations that do are more likely to be spread. The mutations themselves are random. Most of the time they have no real benefit or downside.

Well good for the vast majority of experts. Scientific progress would be impossible if everyone agreed with your vast majority of experts on every subject.
Yes, scientific progress would grind to a halt if we did something as ridiculous as listen to scientists. :rolleyes:

The first problem with this is that the overwhelming majority of genetic mutations lead to death or at the very least, an inability to reproduce. Cancer is a genetic mutation. So is down syndrome. So are a lot (probably the majority) of birth defects.
No, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no effect at all, since the vast majority of human genes are so called "junk genes" and have no use outside DNA identification.

The second problem, and the point I was originally trying to make, is that the interdependency of the human body means that those features could not have evolved gradually. It's all or nothing. You can't say that a circulatory system evolved and then a respiratory system evolved and then a renal system evolved because they are useless without each other.
Actually they didn't just pop into being as they are now. As I understand it(and I may be very wrong), single celled organisms had to do all those things themselves. Then some of them became grouped together. The ones on one side spent most of their energy on getting food, for example, and the ones on the other side spent most of their energy dealing with the waste the clump of cells produced. One side fed them all while the other cleaned up after them all. Slowly the waste disposal organelles on the feeding side began to die off, while the feeding organelles on the waste disposal side began to die off. Eventually this clump of cells became differentiated into different organs in a simple multicellular organism. So it's not that all of a sudden there was a respiratory system, it's just that a few cells in a larger clump of cells couldn't do anything much but respire.

We already covered this with a deck of cards analogy. If your pile of sand came out arranged as a perfect replica of Leonard Nemoy's face, you'd probably assume that some intelligence designed it, wouldn't you? It's possible that it came about randomly, sure; but if you tried to convince anyone of that fact they'd never believe you. And I won't argue that evolution is completely impossible, just that it's so unlikely that I'm inclined to believe that life was designed.


And if you get enough people to look at the pile of sand, there will be some who agree that it does look like Nimoy's face. Especially when there is several hundred years worth of people saying that the pile looks like Nimoy's face.

It's kind of like the whole "Face on Mars". People saw the picture, said "IT'S A FACE OMGZ!" as well as "OMZG Aliens on Mars! Evidence! Here! It had to have been built!" However, those who took the picture, and people who know what they are talking about, easily debunk the myth.

Moral of the story: Just because you may think something looks complex, or constructed, doesn't make it true.

Mo

And if you get enough people to look at the pile of sand, there will be some who agree that it does look like Nimoy's face. Especially when there is several hundred years worth of people saying that the pile looks like Nimoy's face.

It's kind of like the whole "Face on Mars". People saw the picture, said "IT'S A FACE OMGZ!" as well as "OMZG Aliens on Mars! Evidence! Here! It had to have been built!" However, those who took the picture, and people who know what they are talking about, easily debunk the myth.

Moral of the story: Just because you may think something looks complex, or constructed, doesn't make it true.

Mo

If you want evidence, check out the great stone ass of Mars :p

If you want evidence, check out the great stone ass of Mars :p

isn't that the source of all the wind activity on Mars? :p

oh and this is aimed at all the scientists here since the last one was kinda aimed at the creationists out there...

http://www.missmab.com/Comics/Vol799.jpg

Well, it's page 100. What have we accomplished so far?

another Humor break!!!


YAY! :D

South Park explains Evolution from a Creationist's pespective (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7079290349652755994&q=South+Park+Evolution&total=167&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

:D

Well, it's page 100. What have we accomplished so far?



YAY! :D

South Park explains Evolution from a Creationist's pespective (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7079290349652755994&q=South+Park+Evolution&total=167&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0)

:D

The square root of squat, diddly and nada! We should be proud. :)

Half a moment. Theologians had been estimating the age of the earth from the geneologies in the Bible a long time before the rise of science. The idea of a young earth starts with Judaism. According to the calendar used by the Jews, the assumed date of the creation of the world is 3761 BC.

Those weren't scientific dates (i.e., dates derived by scientific means)- those are based on myths. YEC is the scientific reasoning for a 6,000 year-old Earth, in that science *must* prove a 6,000 year-old Earth; and that idea has only existed since 1910 (with the attempt at scientifically rectifying it only being around since 1961).

Actually, Darwin faced huge amounts of opposition. The theory of evolution didn't take hold until well after his death. He was strongly opposed and even ridiculed. But eventually, those who held on to a young earth position grew fewer and fewer until only ridicule and contempt were reserved for them. The tables had turned.

Today, there isn't very many scientists who are YECs. But there are some, like Walt Brown, with his hydroplate theory. He has a book online that makes for interested reading. I'm not saying that I'm convinced by him, but I do find his points very interesting. He gets a lot of criticism, of course. But why don't you read his book and make up your own mind for yourself?

Actually, much of Charles Darwin's opposition was based on the idea that humans could not have evolved from apes. No one opposed the idea of an old Earth- until the YECers came around trying to push the idea as science.

As far as Walt Brown's hydroplate hypothesis goes, he fails simply because he does not provide any evidence- just an explanation, a few equations, and reasons why "Evolutionists" (as if every old Earth claimant is somehow involved in the Theory of Evolution) are wrong. There's no article that says "here's where all the water that exploded onto the Earth came from", either by showing a current or prior layer of water underneath the continents. He also fails to explain where all the Flood water went (since this was a global flood, all that water has to go somewhere) and why the continents are relatively stable now- the hydroplate hypothesis would allow continents to move quicker than they do now, because they are "floating".

I've no doubt that you are right that such a sentiment motivates many of the YEC articles and messages. They do seem rather keen to prove a young earth. I was only reacting to the feeling that you were claiming that all YECs were aflicted by this motivation.

Moreover, I doubt that you could have missed just how keen many people are to show that the world is old and that evolution is the truth. People are just as keen to remove the need for God to explain our existence as they are to show that we do need God to explain our existence.

It's a hypothesis and not my own (please remember that I didn't make that original observation). It's one that I agree with having read quite a lot of YEC literature, noting it can get highly inflammatory. Most YECers probably won't openly admit it, but given how YEC is a fundamentalist Christian thought- and thus applying a literalist view of the Bible- anything that contradicts their reading of the Bible (such as a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth) is met with extreme opposition because it threatens their reading of the Bible.

Furthermore, this "zealous" nature of Evolution supporters I think is mostly propagated by YECers, who base most of their research on the idea that "Evolution is wrong and we are right" and thus openly criticize Evolution (and almost all science to boot) in their works. Evolution scientists do not even give YECers any mention in their works, with the only time YECers get criticized is when there is a debate (such as here). Don't confuse the debate with an overzealous "belief"- the community is open to an idea of a younger or older Earth- they just want proof. So far, none is forthcoming.

I certainly have typed in the 'assumptions' word a lot on this thread. To be honest, I'm sick of it. But that has mostly been because most people have not percieved the importance of assumptions in the scientific method. For example, we assume that every effect has a cause, regardless of where it is located in the universe. We can't test that directly. We can testify to data that supports this assumption, but the concept itself remains an assumption, albeit a very useful one. In fact, we have pretty much build science on top of it, and sent people to the moon based on it. Such an assumption works, so there is no reason to review it, IMO.

The assumption of uniformitarianism is also relatively reasonable. Based on this assumption, we shouldn't expect the mutation rates in living organisms to be any different to what they were in the past. I'm not suggesting that science jumps willy nilly onto such assumptions without a good deal of consideration. What I do disagree with is the use of such assumptions to prove that the world is old. No matter how you turn it around and around, assumptions cannot be used to prove a result. That turns into a self-fulfilling prediction, a type of circular reasoning. And no matter how diverse the experiemnts are, if they are all based on the idea that the world is old, there is little wonder that the data is interpreted consistently. Such agreements in the interpretations cannot prove that the world is old, and hold no value outside of the idea that the world is old. If the world is in fact not old, such interpretations are rubbish, and would never be detected as rubbish, so long as the interpreters are not asking such a question.

I actually don't think that most of the YECs are dishonest and try to contort the data at all. I think most of them are quite honest. Maybe they are mistaken, I'm not in a position to say. But the criticism of 'contortion' is generally in reference to the unwillingness to accept uniformitarian assumptions, not a dishonest manipulation of the data. Such claims of distortion is a common tactic in the clash to paint the other side as dishonest. But I see it as simply a fighting tactic. Claims of dishonesty are generally not necessary, although there are exceptions, of course.

You still fail to grasp that the Old Earth Assessment wasn't invented one day and universally accepted as fact- rather, the OEA was proposed because someone (probably James Hutton or Charles Lyell) found evidence that would suggest an old Earth (whatever that was), other scientists tested it and continued re-testing it (and did so sceptically) and found it to be so reliable that they accepted it as fact. To disprove the OEA, you'd have to show that the centuries and volumes of testing are faulty and provide your own theory based on your own, scientific tests (that are independently verified and hold up to scrutiny). That's just how the scientific method works. It's not impossible for the OEA to be eradicated as a scientific theory but so far no scientist has been able to provide a reasonable alternative to the OEA.

As far as YECers are concerned, you don't seem to have read a lot of their literature. Every single one of them are completely convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old (repeating it ad nauseum) and cook up many explanations (without evidence) to show why they're right. They'll criticize the OEA and Evolution, show the faults of the theories but they never get around to proving their own. In fact, some even acknowledge that evidence provides reasoning for an older Earth (such as nuclear decay rates and light years) and try to rectify it with poorly evidenced explanations (such as Russel Humphreys' rapid decay rate equation). I have yet to see a YEC paper that says "I researched rock structures and found the oldest to be 5,997 years old based on these observed results (as in actual experiments, not reasons why prior dating techniques are "actually wrong"). The OEA is based on experiments and provides observed results- radiometric dating, rock structure assessments, fossil layout, etc. You might be able to say that those results are faulty, but at least the OEA has results- the YEC does not, because they do not provide any.

Furthermore, the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old appears to have come from a misreading of the Bible, specifically 2 Peter 3:8, which says:

"With the LORD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day."

This gets truncated to "With the LORD, a day is a thousand years", forgetting the other part of the verse. Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the Earth is 6,000 years old (or says "3,155 years ago, God created Earth"), and James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh that is credited with first postulating the October 23, 4004 BC date for Creation, even admits that one cannot arrive at a date for Creation without "Divine Revelation" (the Bible). It should also be noted that Ussher was not a scientist and simply used records to prove his chronology- he didn't observe rocks or fossils (as scientists did) to come to his conclusions. It's only after YECers picked it up that Ussher "because a scientist".

Actually, it also takes a lot more than a single pebble out of place to convince me too. I certainly don't expect the theory of evolution to explain life, the universe, and everything. My conclusion, though, is that there is a good deal more than a single pebble out of place. Rather, every single piece of evidence in support of an old earth and macroevolution has major problems, either in the interpretation, or the underlying assumptions, or both. Few of such interpretations take into account the possibility of a young earth, or if they do, they forget to question the underlying assumptions. And as such, they do nothing to answer my question of whether the earth is young or old.

Again with the "assumptions". See above.

Any dill could go into a graveyard, dig up all the skulls and arrange them in a line an make a claim that they show evidence of change. They would all be similar, and would suggest an ancestral end point (beginning with the robust and ending with the gracile). Such a presentation would indicated evolution if we didn't know that they all came from the same graveyard. Would you be convinced? I hope not. I hope you would be asking questions about the dates, and about an alternative method to check for ancestry other than just a fuzzy line of similarities. Note that I'm not claiming that the scientists who found the skulls are dishonest. They simply aren't asking the question of whether evolution is true or not.

Actually, the graveyard experiment would be a great example of evolution- considering what the goal is here (examining different sets of bones between individual specimens), one can clearly see that every skeleton in the graveyard is human. Put a monkey skeleton beside it and you'd be hard pressed not to see that they're similar. Contrast it with skeletons of humanoid skeletons known to be older than us (also knowing that none of those humanoid species exist now), see that they are also similar to our skeletons and you'd also be hard pressed *not* to think there's some kind of connection; and how do you explain that connection? Evolution.

Yes, it seems as though you really do understand another problem with 'transitional'. The fact that the additional discoveries of fossils cannot invalidate the theory suggests that there isn't any alternative way to validate the theory. That means it rest more on the concepts in the heads of the researchers than the actually reality as they find it. So long as they are commited to building their case, they won't have a problem with accomodating any and every discovery into their theory. That would mean that it is non-fasifyable, exactly the same case with a religion.

No, that "assumption" (again) *can* be falsified if the evidence contradicts what is known (and I have provided some examples of how that could happen). That evidence isn't forthcoming.

Whether these fossils and their locations in the strata are best explained by the evolutionary theory is exactly the issue. That you claim that the evolutionary theory is the best is based on what? Have you analysed the data from a creationist perspective? Can't you see that the claim of 'best fit' depends a good deal on your world view, on whether you have accepted that the world *must* be old, or only accepted that it *might* be old? Sure, the fossils had to come from somewhere, but if that 'somewhere' must be evolution, then it is no wonder that you find an evolutionary conclusion to be the best fit. But that doesn't convince me, because I'm not committed to evolutionary conclusions. They may or may not be right.

I would say that I have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12768284&postcount=475)- objectively- but that was from our last conversation where you seemed convinced that I was biased anyway as if you somehow knew me when I made that analysis. I won't discuss this part further.

But your definition of 'science' seems to be the side of the clash that is committed to naturalistic explanations. That doesn't make them neutral. So Kecibukia was accusing me of reading biased literature, without realizing that he/she was also reading biased literature.

The definition of 'not a shred of scientific legitimacy' is coming from a biased source, so shouldn't we consider that before agreeing with such a source?
The Talkorigins website does have links to peer reviewed papers (as did the ID site), but that doesn't mean that such papers are written by neutral scientists. Every scientist has his funding and career to consider.

The Talkorgins is clearly as biased as the ID site. That you consider the talkorigins site as having a more weighty scientific legitimacy only tells me that you yourself are biased in your judgement.

You're right that TalkOrigins *is* biased, but Kecibukia isn't telling you to read TalkOrigins- I believe Kecibukia is telling you to get your information from scientific journals because we're discussing science.

The scientific method isn't agnostic. It's not atheistic. It isn't any other belief-based philosophical position. It is neutral. The scientific method can only be applied to things that it can test. Things that it cannot test, like philosophical assumptions, e.g. exitence of God, non-existence of God, involvement of God in the natural world, etc. cannot be tested by the scientific method.

What that means is that anyone can do science, Christian, Muslim, or atheist. It doesn't mean that they cannot hold 'Goddidit' ideas and explanations, or that if they do they cannot be scientists. That is absolute rubbish. The scientific method need not rule out non-testible ideas. It simply must not test ideas that we think cannot be tested.

What it does mean is that the scientific method is very limited in answering questions about the origins. In fact, it cannot. The answers are constructed by humans with pre-existing world views. Such answers do not need to be restricted to testible ideas. But if the ideas are not testible, then they are simply not scientific. But who among us would hold the concept of God to be scientific?

And yet many people don't seem to understand that any idea about the origins is just as unscientific, until such time as we find a way to travel back in time. The idea that we evolved from apes is not testible. Therefore, it isn't scientific. But that doesn't mean that the scientific method forbids us to allow for such a posibility. The method is completely neutral towards such an idea.

First of all, my scientific method post doesn't have anything *at all* to do with Evolution, and I've already discussed everything you've said in this quote elsewhere.

Being open to the possibility of a god is a result of agnosticism, not a definition of it. The agnostic position on god is that god is unknowable. The reason is a distinction between the universe as it is and the universe as we can know it.

The scientific method "rules out" the supernatural for the same reason agnosticism holds it to be unknowable --what we "know" through our senses and reasoning is nature, by definition. What we can study through the scientific method is what we can "know".

OK- don't get me wrong, I don't think science is inherently atheistic, because it's not- it's agnostic, because science can't answer questions about the supernatural so it won't. I still think the method is, because the method must be used on the conviction of the absence of the supernatural. Otherwise, if the researcher isn't convinced that the phenomena *wasn't* supernatural the researcher might miss the natural explanation because they've "found what they are looking for" (the supernatural explanation). Since the scientific method cannot accept supernatural explanations and must be convinced that they are not there, it is atheistic.

We already covered this with a deck of cards analogy. If your pile of sand came out arranged as a perfect replica of Leonard Nemoy's face, you'd probably assume that some intelligence designed it, wouldn't you?

And?

Unless the world resembles Leonard Nimoy, how does this help?

I think you are saying we can tell there is 'design' when we can see a resemblence to something...? Which is ridiculous, for so many reasons... but not least being: the world looks like only one familiar thing - the world.

The truth is, it is somewhere between hubris and idiocy to believe we would be able to even recognise the 'design' of any entity that could make worlds.

Those weren't scientific dates (i.e., dates derived by scientific means)- those are based on myths. YEC is the scientific reasoning for a 6,000 year-old Earth, in that science *must* prove a 6,000 year-old Earth; and that idea has only existed since 1910 (with the attempt at scientifically rectifying it only being around since 1961).

You have a point there. I concede.



Actually, much of Charles Darwin's opposition was based on the idea that humans could not have evolved from apes. No one opposed the idea of an old Earth- until the YECers came around trying to push the idea as science.

I was under the impression that the old earth idea wasn't that popular until Charles Lyell. Sure, it was around, but most of the scientists before Lyell were creationists that were heavily influenced by a literal reading of Genesis.


As far as Walt Brown's hydroplate hypothesis goes, he fails simply because he does not provide any evidence- just an explanation, a few equations, and reasons why "Evolutionists" (as if every old Earth claimant is somehow involved in the Theory of Evolution) are wrong. There's no article that says "here's where all the water that exploded onto the Earth came from", either by showing a current or prior layer of water underneath the continents. He also fails to explain where all the Flood water went (since this was a global flood, all that water has to go somewhere) and why the continents are relatively stable now- the hydroplate hypothesis would allow continents to move quicker than they do now, because they are "floating".

I suspect that Walt Brown doesn't do many scientific experiments, for one reason or another. (He is an old fellow, after all. Most old scientists spend all their time in the office, and it's the young people in the labs.)
But there are frequent mentions in his book of predictions based on his hypothesis that could be tested. The book is full of them.



It's a hypothesis and not my own (please remember that I didn't make that original observation). It's one that I agree with having read quite a lot of YEC literature, noting it can get highly inflammatory. Most YECers probably won't openly admit it, but given how YEC is a fundamentalist Christian thought- and thus applying a literalist view of the Bible- anything that contradicts their reading of the Bible (such as a 4.6 billion-year-old Earth) is met with extreme opposition because it threatens their reading of the Bible.

Sure, I understand their main concern is to show that the earth isn't that old. It does seem very unscientific to take the approach that assumes the earth is young, and then go about trying to find a way to demonstrate it. On the other hand, that is exactly what the old earthers seem to be doing as well.


Furthermore, this "zealous" nature of Evolution supporters I think is mostly propagated by YECers, who base most of their research on the idea that "Evolution is wrong and we are right" and thus openly criticize Evolution (and almost all science to boot) in their works. Evolution scientists do not even give YECers any mention in their works, with the only time YECers get criticized is when there is a debate (such as here). Don't confuse the debate with an overzealous "belief"- the community is open to an idea of a younger or older Earth- they just want proof. So far, none is forthcoming.


I actually disagree. Most people are VERY closed to a young earth. If the young earth idea is mentioned by the average old earth supporter, there is nothing but ridicule and contempt for it. I've yet to see an exception in any official article. The community is not open to a younger Earth.


You still fail to grasp that the Old Earth Assessment wasn't invented one day and universally accepted as fact- rather, the OEA was proposed because someone (probably James Hutton or Charles Lyell) found evidence that would suggest an old Earth (whatever that was), other scientists tested it and continued re-testing it (and did so sceptically) and found it to be so reliable that they accepted it as fact.

None of my arguments hinge on the assumption that 'the Old Earth Assessment was(n't) invented one day and universally accepted as fact'. I agree that it came to be accepted gradually, though I do not agree with the basis by which it came to be accepted--which seems to be that it is the only 'scientific' assumption, and thus the only one left standing. That says nothing about whether it is true or not.


To disprove the OEA, you'd have to show that the centuries and volumes of testing are faulty and provide your own theory based on your own, scientific tests (that are independently verified and hold up to scrutiny). That's just how the scientific method works. It's not impossible for the OEA to be eradicated as a scientific theory but so far no scientist has been able to provide a reasonable alternative to the OEA.

I'm not under any obligation to disprove the OEA, or to prove it. Neither are the YEAs. Neither it is necessary to hold only one theory as plausible. Humans are intelligent enough to consider two or more concurrently.

And I would say that it is impossible for the OEA to be falsified. We could only find arguments and evidence for or against it. Falsifying it it altogether out of our reach.

Finding a reasonable alternative to either the OEA or the YEA will never be possible for some people.


As far as YECers are concerned, you don't seem to have read a lot of their literature. Every single one of them are completely convinced that the Earth is 6,000 years old (repeating it ad nauseum) and cook up many explanations (without evidence) to show why they're right. They'll criticize the OEA and Evolution, show the faults of the theories but they never get around to proving their own.

From what have read, I would say that the YEAs are just as convinced as the OEAs. Likewise, the OEAs do little to prove the old age of the earth. Not to mention (again) that nothing that happened in the past can be proven.


In fact, some even acknowledge that evidence provides reasoning for an older Earth (such as nuclear decay rates and light years) and try to rectify it with poorly evidenced explanations (such as Russel Humphreys' rapid decay rate equation). I have yet to see a YEC paper that says "I researched rock structures and found the oldest to be 5,997 years old based on these observed results (as in actual experiments, not reasons why prior dating techniques are "actually wrong"). The OEA is based on experiments and provides observed results- radiometric dating, rock structure assessments, fossil layout, etc. You might be able to say that those results are faulty, but at least the OEA has results- the YEC does not, because they do not provide any.


Both sides have their weak points.
I do not say that the radiometric dating measurements are faulty--just that the following calculations into years (based on those measurements) hold little value outside of an old earth scenario.


Furthermore, the idea that the Earth is 6,000 years old appears to have come from a misreading of the Bible, specifically 2 Peter 3:8, which says:

"With the LORD a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like a day."

This gets truncated to "With the LORD, a day is a thousand years", forgetting the other part of the verse.

I have never heard of the age of the Earth coming from this verse. Sounds a bit suspect, if you ask me. I think the verse is in the context of when Jesus returns, not in the context of how long it took to create the earth. In fact, it has nothing to do with it, I would say.


Nowhere in Genesis does it say that the Earth is 6,000 years old (or says "3,155 years ago, God created Earth"), and James Ussher, the Archbishop of Armagh that is credited with first postulating the October 23, 4004 BC date for Creation, even admits that one cannot arrive at a date for Creation without "Divine Revelation" (the Bible). It should also be noted that Ussher was not a scientist and simply used records to prove his chronology- he didn't observe rocks or fossils (as scientists did) to come to his conclusions. It's only after YECers picked it up that Ussher "because a scientist".


You are right. The Bible does not say how old the earth is.

I have never heard of any YEC crediting Ussher as a scientist. I have only read about him as a bishop and a theologian.




Actually, the graveyard experiment would be a great example of evolution- considering what the goal is here (examining different sets of bones between individual specimens), one can clearly see that every skeleton in the graveyard is human. Put a monkey skeleton beside it and you'd be hard pressed not to see that they're similar. Contrast it with skeletons of humanoid skeletons known to be older than us (also knowing that none of those humanoid species exist now), see that they are also similar to our skeletons and you'd also be hard pressed *not* to think there's some kind of connection; and how do you explain that connection? Evolution.


Or common design. Take your pick. If similarity in bones can be taken as evidence for common ancestry, then similarity between biological motors (e.g. flagella) and industrial motors can be taken as evidence of design.
Conclusion: similarity means similarity, not necessarily evolution. Of course, one can use an evolutionary explanation, or one can use design.


No, that "assumption" (again) *can* be falsified if the evidence contradicts what is known (and I have provided some examples of how that could happen). That evidence isn't forthcoming.


If assumptions could be tested, they would no longer be assumptions.


I would say that I have (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12768284&postcount=475)- objectively- but that was from our last conversation where you seemed convinced that I was biased anyway as if you somehow knew me when I made that analysis. I won't discuss this part further.


Fine.


You're right that TalkOrigins *is* biased, but Kecibukia isn't telling you to read TalkOrigins- I believe Kecibukia is telling you to get your information from scientific journals because we're discussing science.


If that were true, then I could have just as easily pointed to the peer reviewed scientific journals referenced on the ID site as evidence that it was also discussing science. The way I understood it, I was being told to read the TalkOrigins site as an unbiased scientific site, and therefore an authority on the topic. The fact that he/she didn't pick this point up is probably evidence that he/she doesn't realize how science is never free from bias.



OK- don't get me wrong, I don't think science is inherently atheistic, because it's not- it's agnostic, because science can't answer questions about the supernatural so it won't.

Then have you changed your position, or did you simply not say it right the first time, because I understood you as saying that science is atheistic?


I still think the method is, because the method must be used on the conviction of the absence of the supernatural.

Aha, you are distinguishing between science and the method of science.

I think the method is neutral, however.

Most people understand the term 'atheism' as the belief that there is no God.

The method is neutral because it cannot tell us if there is a God or if there isn't.


Otherwise, if the researcher isn't convinced that the phenomena *wasn't* supernatural the researcher might miss the natural explanation because they've "found what they are looking for" (the supernatural explanation). Since the scientific method cannot accept supernatural explanations and must be convinced that they are not there, it is atheistic.

This is actually myth.

Rather, the scientific method cannot test supernatural explanations, and therefore moves on to test only what can be tested. That doesn't make it atheistic. That makes it focussed on testing the natural world. If it was truly atheistic, then any scientific conclusion you could make could only reinforce the belief that there is no God.

EVOLUTION WINS!!!!!

It is clear that of many,many people(well of 500) from different parts of the world, who have no bias and for the most part do not know each other favor the theory of evolution to die hard creationism. This thread has not denied God, it has however proved the majority of people(the deal was first to hit 500 wins) believe in and accept te theory of evolution.

DO NOT ZSTOP POSTING AND VOTING IN THIS THREAD!! Just because evolution won doesn;t mean its over. It really ends when the thread dies. If somehow by a miracle(no pun intended) creationism overcomes evolution it will be the new winner.

You should have made the poll public.

The thread is really only about 33 pages long. It repeats itself entirely over again and again, so it just -looks- like it's 100 pages.

EVOLUTION WINS!!!!!

It is clear that of many,many people(well of 500) from different parts of the world, who have no bias and for the most part do not know each other favor the theory of evolution to die hard creationism. This thread has not denied God, it has however proved the majority of people(the deal was first to hit 500 wins) believe in and accept te theory of evolution.

DO NOT ZSTOP POSTING AND VOTING IN THIS THREAD!! Just because evolution won doesn;t mean its over. It really ends when the thread dies. If somehow by a miracle(no pun intended) creationism overcomes evolution it will be the new winner.

How much do you want to bet that nearly all (if not all) of the people who voted "creationism" were from the U.S.? This country is so screwed up.


The thread is really only about 33 pages long. It repeats itself entirely over again and again, so it just -looks- like it's 100 pages.

How much longer before it's the longest thread ever?

Here's my take:

The Bible says 7 days, right? How exactly long is "a day"? It could be said that over a "day" (hundreds of millions of years), humans evolved and such. Going on this theory, I will further explain:

"The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep." This could be construed as space.

"God forms a man "of dust from the ground," Where does life come from? Debatable, but I do remember hearing that life formed out of sorts of amino acids in the ground, so this could be correct.

Your take?

Your take?

As has been pointed out already, the order of creation as proposed by genesis is still incompatible with that proposed by different disciplines of science. Fruit bearing trees before the sun existed does not fit biology. The Earth before the sun and other stars does not fit astrophysics.

As has been pointed out already, the order of creation as proposed by genesis is still incompatible with that proposed by different disciplines of science. Fruit bearing trees before the sun existed does not fit biology. The Earth before the sun and other stars does not fit astrophysics.

Ah, I don't want to sound stupid, but I really didn't read most of "The Creation". My fault.