NationStates Jolt Archive

Those of you who have followed the attempts of Creation 'Scientists' to pass off their ideas as a non-religious theory of Intelligent Design may be interested to know that they've come up with two new strategies:

1. Stop asking for Intelligent Design to be discussed in classrooms, now they're only referring to 'Critical analysis of evolution'. Naturally this critical analysis is just the same tired old ID arguments with references to 'design' taken out, just as ID textbooks were Creationist textbooks with God crudely editted out and replaced by an anonymous Designer. More information at the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/antievolutionis.html).

2. The second strategy is breath taking in its sheer chutzpah: "Yes, we have lots of scientists supporting Intelligent Design and they're doing lots of clever research, but it all has to be kept secret to stop those nasty Darwinists finding out". In this line of argument, they've awarded an award to an anonymous grad student (http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/312) and they're asserting that 20-30% of research into RNA synthesis is being hushed up because the implications are too controversial.

The real question is: are there really people out there gullible enough to buy this tripe? Sadly I feel compelled to say yes.

Aw man, I need to change my opinion again!!! Either God made it all or He didn't. I don't see how using more general words change the view.

I've just realised how badly I screwed the title up.

I've just realised how badly I screwed the title up.

Methinks you need to evolve your grammar skills a bit :p.

Still, can you really expect any better from a group of intellectually dishonest Fundies with a shaky, barely existent grasp of reality?

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’ with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’ Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson


The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

I've just realised how badly I screwed the title up.

Oh the irony. Nah it's good. Injects humor.

Oh, also it's Creationism...

Wow, a whole $100 (and a signed book!)...I got more for my dramaturgy award from a community college...you'd think they could at least pull together more money than a community college theater department...

Not to mention that apparently he can't even put it on his resume.

"Hey, thanks for bringing us one step closer to being a larger fraction of the number of scientists named Steve that disagree with us. Here, take your girl (or guy) out on us."

The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

If you're going to call out one theory for not having sufficient evidence shouldn't the 'alternative theories' have at least as much?


http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp
Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/), just to save time...

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’ with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’ Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson


The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

What alternate theories would these be? Creationists have yet to propose a theory.

Denying 'macro-evolution' is patently absurd because speciesisation has already been observed in creatures with short life spans like fruit flies; have you ever heard of 'ring species' by the way?

Darwinism has nothing to do with creative power. It does have everything to do with analysing ALL facts not just choice ones then use of the Bible. That website you linked solely begs the question. Never does it answer anything. All it says it that the Bible is correct because we interpretted correctly and everyone else did not. Yet this is the exact argument for why we should not believe scientists. Because they "interpret" the facts. Now there thermodynamics argument just completely shows a lack of knowledge in the subject of physics. Being a couple years from obtaining a PhD in physics, I will claim that their thoughts on the second law is a joke, because yet again it is not all inclusive. It picks and chooses what facts they wish to use.

If you're going to call out one theory for not having sufficient evidence shouldn't the 'alternative theories' have at least as much?


Talk Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/), just to save time...

Yes, which is why I provided a link to one of those theories. It goes over all the evidence, explains why it rejects the Darwinian explanation and then explains why it accepts this other theory. It is a religious website, but it uses science (the same science that evolutionists use).

Darwinism has nothing to do with creative power. It does have everything to do with analysing ALL facts not just choice ones then use of the Bible. That website you linked solely begs the question. Never does it answer anything. All it says it that the Bible is correct because we interpretted correctly and everyone else did not. Yet this is the exact argument for why we should not believe scientists. Because they "interpret" the facts. Now there thermodynamics argument just completely shows a lack of knowledge in the subject of physics. Being a couple years from obtaining a PhD in physics, I will claim that their thoughts on the second law is a joke, because yet again it is not all inclusive. It picks and chooses what facts they wish to use.

Really it just stems from the crude definition of entropy as "disorder from order." Rather than the (multiple) ways physicists describe and define it.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

Those are two (bad, but let us overlook that) reasons to not believe the theory of evolution.
But what are your reasons to believe in Creationism ?

People are just stubborn. The problem with creationism is that it wasn't discovered it was just a story that somebody wrote, and their so called "scientist" (creationists) aren't trying to discover anything they trying to prove something right. Where as the evolutionist scientists aren't 100% trying to prove it they are just making discoveries that just happen to always be proving evolution right and they never find anything significant against it and there are not trying to avoid anything. What I am saying is that evolutionist scientist aren't half as biest as "intelligent" design "scientists".

I think those theories that contradict the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory of Intelligent Pasta have serious, gaping, obvious weaknesses which, although I'm far too superior to elaborate on in any meaningful way, I feel should be discussed in all classrooms.

Yes, which is why I provided a link to one of those theories. It goes over all the evidence, explains why it rejects the Darwinian explanation and then explains why it accepts this other theory. It is a religious website, but it uses science (the same science that evolutionists use).

It most certainly does not use science. They might try to imitate science but they deny the very foundatios of the scientific method: evidence based reasoning.

To quote their statement of faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp):

No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

"If reality contradicts the Bible, then reality is in the wrong". Yep, that sounds scientific to me...

Yes, which is why I provided a link to one of those theories. It goes over all the evidence, explains why it rejects the Darwinian explanation and then explains why it accepts this other theory. It is a religious website, but it uses science (the same science that evolutionists use).

Considering science cannot make any statements about the existence of a supernatural designer I daresay that is untrue.

So I ask again: why do you embrace creationism, and not one of the millions of other ideas on the diversity of life ?

Really it just stems from the crude definition of entropy as "disorder from order." Rather than the (multiple) ways physicists describe and define it.

Very true. This is solely an interpretation of some physicist trying to dumb down physics for someone. At the moment, Thermodynamics/Statistical Mechanics is a very precise science with some limiting cases of the mathematics. Unfortunately, people like to look at these limited cases (AKA high school physics books) and believe that they solely contain the complete story. It would be like me reading a children's picture Bible and believing that I know everything about it.

I believe that God created the Universe.

There isn't a physicist alive who can prove what happened before the Big Bang - and there will never be (in our lifetimes) a demonstration - a repeatable experiment - that shows what happened before the Big Bang.

So scientists are in the same boat as religious believers when we take it to that moment in time. Pure "I pulled this out of my ass" speculation.

As for what happened after the Big Bang, science has a pretty neat description, and all I have to say is "that's the way God intended for it to come out".

It fits in neatly with the concept of free will as well. God front-loaded the Universe, and here we are.

Yes, which is why I provided a link to one of those theories. It goes over all the evidence, explains why it rejects the Darwinian explanation and then explains why it accepts this other theory. It is a religious website, but it uses science (the same science that evolutionists use).

Dude, this is their evidence-
Practical application

When someone tells me they want ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, not the Bible, my response is as follows:

‘You might not believe the Bible but I do. And I believe it gives me the right basis to understand this universe and correctly interpret the facts around me. I’m going to give you some examples of how building my thinking on the Bible explains the world and is not contradicted by science. For instance, the Bible states that God made distinct kinds of animals and plants. Let me show you what happens when I build my thinking on this presupposition. I will illustrate how processes such as natural selection, genetic drift, etc. can be explained and interpreted. You will see how the science of genetics makes sense based upon the Bible.’

One can of course do this with numerous scientific examples, showing how the issue of sin and judgment, for example, is relevant to geology and fossil evidence. And how the Fall of man, with the subsequent Curse on creation, makes sense of the evidence of harmful mutations, violence, and death.

Once I’ve explained some of this in detail, I then continue:

‘Now let me ask you to defend your position concerning these matters. Please show me how your way of thinking, based on your beliefs, makes sense of the same evidence. And I want you to point out where my science and logic are wrong.’


Essentially, 'the bible sayz' and then using a bunch of 'because Zeus is mad we get thunder' explanations. This isn't evidence, dude. When a scientist (I'm not going to use 'evolutionist,' that's stupid) comes up with a reason for something happening s/he tests it, causality is demonstrated not just a story s/he came up with that sounds good and matches a book s/he read.

That's the difference between coming up with a story and having evidence.

Your book is not evidence anymore than The Iliad is.

I believe that God created the Universe.

There isn't a physicist alive who can prove what happened before the Big Bang - and there will never be (in our lifetimes) a demonstration - a repeatable experiment - that shows what happened before the Big Bang.

So scientists are in the same boat as religious believers when we take it to that moment in time. Pure "I pulled this out of my ass" speculation.

As for what happened after the Big Bang, science has a pretty neat description, and all I have to say is "that's the way God intended for it to come out".

It fits in neatly with the concept of free will as well. God front-loaded the Universe, and here we are.


See the problem I have is that there's empirical evidence pointing to the big bang and the universe expanding from a central point. Science supports it pretty solidly. There's no evidence that god had a hand in it. Not saying it's impossible, there's just no data to support that assumption. If you want to believe that, fine, knock yourself out, but don't try to pawn it off as science without evidence supporting it.

Very true. This is solely an interpretation of some physicist trying to dumb down physics for someone. At the moment, Thermodynamics/Statistical Mechanics is a very precise science with some limiting cases of the mathematics. Unfortunately, people like to look at these limited cases (AKA high school physics books) and believe that they solely contain the complete story. It would be like me reading a children's picture Bible and believing that I know everything about it.

Quite right. That came as a total shock when I took Thermo this past Spring. Annihilated me, left me roasted and crispy on the floor of the lecture hall, largely because I figured it'd be a slightly more math intensive version of what I'd dealt with in high school, as opposed to a partial-derivative-using, limit-taking, statistically-analyzing nightmare.

See the problem I have is that there's empirical evidence pointing to the big bang and the universe expanding from a central point. Science supports it pretty solidly. There's no evidence that god had a hand in it. Not saying it's impossible, there's just no data to support that assumption. If you want to believe that, fine, knock yourself out, but don't try to pawn it off as science without evidence supporting it.

Well, that's not really what he's saying. He's saying we don't know what happened before the Big Bang. Not that the Big Bang never happened, or that things didn't progress much as they've been determined to have progressed by cosmologists.

Which makes sense, when you think about it, since anything that happened before the Big Bang is something we simply don't have the toolset to test.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp



That's a funny site. I always go there when I am bored and want a good laugh.

Ahh Philip. :D He is still pissing over losing Dover.


And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’


Not a valid question. The Theory of Evolution sets out to explain. It was a never a yes/no question. Science does't work on that principle because you may declare something as Yes and latter evidence disproves it.


with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’

It's called peer review which is a powerful force to keep something honest. You may argue something you think is true and there will be a 100 people saying you are nuts and will try to prove you wrong. Overtime your ideas will be accepted or rejected.


Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent.


Of course they are not content with it. They don't offer anything because they know it will not survive peer review. Scientists have this nasty attitude of not accepting something when somebody says "trust me"


Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place.

Artificial is a weak attempt to declare something as false. He attempts to dissuade you and hopes you will overlook that fact that it has happened.

Now abiogenisis is a different area compared to evolution.


In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson

:D Dawkins really pisses him off! :D

The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

:D
Where do you Christians get trained for the persecution complex? Get some push back and many of you jump right into I am being persecuted!
:D

I've often wondered why Creationist organisations don't pool their money and launch a worldwide search for fossilised lifeforms in PreCambrian strata which aren't sponges or some other equally simple creature. All it would take would be one fossilised rabbit, human, rhino or pelican and the entire theory of evolution would be scuppered and they could all collect their Nobel prizes.

To my knowledge, there are no such programmes running at the moment, and I don't believe there ever have been. Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why this is?

Because it's significantly more lucrative to just milk believers for what they're worth, than to actually spend that money on something you know you won't find?

I've often wondered why Creationist organisations don't pool their money and launch a worldwide search for fossilised lifeforms in PreCambrian strata (which aren't sponges or some other equally simple creature). All it would take would be one fossilised rabbit, human, rhino or pelican and the entire theory of evolution would be scuppered and they could all collect their Nobel prizes.

To my knowledge, there are no such programmes running at the moment, and I don't believe there ever have been. Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why this is?

Well, that's not really what he's saying. He's saying we don't know what happened before the Big Bang. Not that the Big Bang never happened, or that things didn't progress much as they've been determined to have progressed by cosmologists.

Which makes sense, when you think about it, since anything that happened before the Big Bang is something we simply don't have the toolset to test.

However, and I say this often, there have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain at one point in time, couldn't figure the cause, and in every single case throughout history not once, not once has the answer turned out to be 'magic.'

Just going on patterns, I'm going to have to guess that this will be just like every other instance and in fact not be magic. There is no reason to believe that it is in fact magic. There is every reason, in fact, to believe it is not.

We cannot prove it wasn't magic, but the likelyhood is so remote as to be hardly worth exploring. Especially since conveniently enough one of magic's central tenants seems to be that it can't be proven...

Explaining evolutionary theory to creationists is like explaining to a cat why it isn't allowed to eat your plants. It's bloody futile.

Those of you who have followed the attempts of Creation 'Scientists' to pass off their ideas as a non-religious theory of Intelligent Design may be interested to know that they've come up with two new strategies:

1. Stop asking for Intelligent Design to be discussed in classrooms, now they're only referring to 'Critical analysis of evolution'. Naturally this critical analysis is just the same tired old ID arguments with references to 'design' taken out, just as ID textbooks were Creationist textbooks with God crudely editted out and replaced by an anonymous Designer. More information at the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/antievolutionis.html).

2. The second strategy is breath taking in its sheer chutzpah: "Yes, we have lots of scientists supporting Intelligent Design and they're doing lots of clever research, but it all has to be kept secret to stop those nasty Darwinists finding out". In this line of argument, they've awarded an award to an anonymous grad student (http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/312) and they're asserting that 20-30% of research into RNA synthesis is being hushed up because the implications are too controversial.

The real question is: are there really people out there gullible enough to buy this tripe? Sadly I feel compelled to say yes.

You've got to be kidding. They updated Dumbass Design again?

If they keep evolving like this, eventually religion won't even play a part in it and it will just become secular doubt of Darwinian evolution. I guess that's a step in the right direction.

However, and I say this often, there have been a ton of things that we couldn't explain at one point in time, couldn't figure the cause, and in every single case throughout history not once, not once has the answer turned out to be 'magic.'

Just going on patterns, I'm going to have to guess that this will be just like every other instance and in fact not be magic. There is no reason to believe that it is in fact magic. There is every reason, in fact, to believe it is not.

We cannot prove it wasn't magic, but the likelyhood is so remote as to be hardly worth exploring. Especially since conveniently enough one of magic's central tenants seems to be that it can't be proven...

The point isn't what did or didn't prove it, it's whether or not science can be used to determine what things were like before the Big Bang. Which it really can't. We lack the toolset in our four dimensions to experimentally observe reality as it was before time and space as we know it existed.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:



Do you consider Creationism a science?

I've often wondered why Creationist organisations don't pool their money and launch a worldwide search for fossilised lifeforms in PreCambrian strata (which aren't sponges or some other equally simple creature). All it would take would be one fossilised rabbit, human, rhino or pelican and the entire theory of evolution would be scuppered and they could all collect their Nobel prizes.

To my knowledge, there are no such programmes running at the moment, and I don't believe there ever have been. Would anyone like to hazard a guess as to why this is?

Easy - they are not searching for the truth. The mere fact that most of the claims the ID and creationist movements make are distortions of facts and statements by other people - or sometimes even lies should make this clear.

The day creationists start to play honest and fair is the day I will value their opinion. I will not hold my breath.

but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place.

Not evolution. If you will continue to argue that it is, it's because you make the mistaken assumption that they "come" into existence. They don't. At best they blend into existence.

In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal.

Okay, so, I create water in a laboratory by burning off fossil fuels. Have I now somehow proven that volcanoes are sentient beings that consciously persue the goal of creating water?

[qoute]The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence.[/quote]

Nothing with respect to evolution is done in a laboratory that couldn't effectively happen in nature. We're not talking gene therapy here.

The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution

Not really.

they still have no sufficient evidence.

So you vouch that going "fucking magic" (in the words of Eddie Izzard) is better than having a developing scientific theory that has permitted us to feed millions more than we otherwise have?

Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

Once an alternate theory can improve livestock and food production tremendously, I'll gladly listen to it.

Until then, well, let's not just go "fucking magic!" shall we?

The point isn't what did or didn't prove it, it's whether or not science can be used to determine what things were like before the Big Bang. Which it really can't. We lack the toolset in our four dimensions to experimentally observe reality as it was before time and space as we know it existed.

Right, we can't measure it. Got that, wasn't confused.

Of all the things we couldn't measure before, when we where able to, never turned out to be magic.

Maybe you think magic is 'due.' Doesn't seem likely, however.

See the problem I have is that there's empirical evidence pointing to the big bang and the universe expanding from a central point. Science supports it pretty solidly. There's no evidence that god had a hand in it. Not saying it's impossible, there's just no data to support that assumption. If you want to believe that, fine, knock yourself out, but don't try to pawn it off as science without evidence supporting it.

I think you're missing my point.

The point is that no one, not even scientists, know why it happened or how it came to be in the initial state prior to the Big Bang.

I'm not passing it off as science. I'm passing it off as "what I believe" - which is all that any scientist on this planet can say about "why" or "conditions before the Big Bang".

I'm not passing it off as science. I'm passing it off as "what I believe" - which is all that any scientist on this planet can say about "why" or "conditions before the Big Bang".

Quite true. However, then you are merely a believer in creation (which is fine) - while a creationist insists that creation is a scientifically sound theory (which is not) and the only alternative to evolution (which again is not).

I like how Darwinism is being treated like a separate religion. Like every - uh - Tuesday, "Darwinist" get together and bow in front of his statue while a head speaker wears a clothe embroidered with the map of the Galapagos Islands and It all ends with the sacrifice of the weakest member of the convent.

Explaining evolutionary theory to creationists is like explaining to a cat why it isn't allowed to eat your plants. It's bloody futile.

I liken it to explaining how to drive a standard transmission to someone over the phone who is sitting in a car with an automatic transmission. There is a fundamental missing element in the understanding of what's going on that makes the conversation difficult.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’ with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’ Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson


The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

The notion of "What science says is true is a bunch of bunk, so my theory automatically wins!" is a fallacy. Try again and come back with something other than "Creationism is right because Darwinism is wrong." It's a false dichotomy.

Aside from that, on some level, the concept of evolution is provable. The business about adapting over millions of years is hardly observable, but it's observable for smaller life forms.

As for what created the Universe...well, say what you will about it. It's probably something far greater than our comprehension.

Quite true. However, then you are merely a believer in creation (which is fine) - while a creationist insists that creation is a scientifically sound theory (which is not) and the only alternative to evolution (which again is not).

Religion is not science. It's not based on "proof". It's based on "belief".

Beliefs are adhered to by "faith".

I like how Darwinism is being treated like a separate religion. Like every - uh - Tuesday, "Darwinist" get together and bow in front of his statue while a head speaker wears a clothe embroidered with the map of the Galapagos Islands and It all ends with the sacrifice of the weakest member of the convent.

Quality

Religion is not science. It's not based on "proof". It's based on "belief".

Beliefs are adhered to by "faith".

*applauds*
Now please go preach that to the less intelligent believers...

*applauds*
Now please go preach that to the less intelligent believers...

We don't all go to the same church. It's possible to be a "fundamentalist" without being idiotic about belief.

We don't all go to the same church. It's possible to be a "fundamentalist" without being idiotic about belief.

I know. However, some of the idiots may be more willing to listen to a fellow believer - even from a different church - than to one of the "atheist evilutionists".

http://liberalvaluesblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/2007_07_09_wheel_of_misfortune.jpg

Quite right. That came as a total shock when I took Thermo this past Spring. Annihilated me, left me roasted and crispy on the floor of the lecture hall, largely because I figured it'd be a slightly more math intensive version of what I'd dealt with in high school, as opposed to a partial-derivative-using, limit-taking, statistically-analyzing nightmare.

Did you take a course that actually derived it all from scratch? Oh my God, that was brutal. You learn to integrate special functions real quick.

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20050204intelligentdesign.gif
http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20050204intelligentdesign.gif

http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20050204intelligentdesign.gif
http://www.idrewthis.org/comics/idt20050204intelligentdesign.gif

I like that. Evidence enough for me.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’ with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’ Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson


The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.


And the biggest reason why I am not a creationist NOR a supporter of intelligent design is that I am content with the knowledge that human science hasn't uncovered everything yet, if it is even possible to do so. So content, in fact, that I don't feel the need to fill in the gaps with fantasy.

I liken it to explaining how to drive a standard transmission to someone over the phone who is sitting in a car with an automatic transmission. There is a fundamental missing element in the understanding of what's going on that makes the conversation difficult.

One of the main problems with science today is that to understand some of the major parts of it (quantum physics, evolution) it requires more than a cursory read.

As an exercise, try going to some Third World country, and telling some farmer about how a tunnel diode works (I was asked how my watch kept time).

He thought the mere idea of electrons was complete bullshit, and that nothing can "tunnel" through solid matter.

One of the main problems with science today is that to understand some of the major parts of it (quantum physics, evolution) it requires more than a cursory read.

As an exercise, try going to some Third World country, and telling some farmer about how a tunnel diode works (I was asked how my watch kept time).

He thought the mere idea of electrons was complete bullshit, and that nothing can "tunnel" through solid matter.

That's what differentiates "good" scientists from "great" ones. That's why Richard Feynman was one of the most beloved physicists of all time. He could accurately and adequately explain his sciences. Most people have a hard time with that.

Did you take a course that actually derived it all from scratch? Oh my God, that was brutal. You learn to integrate special functions real quick.

Oh yes you do. And I'm "looking forward" to taking QM this fall. It's going to hurt painfully.

I don't know the details of how my watch works, but I don't really care.

And I was rather young (elementary school, I'm sure) when they my parents explained evolution via the birds in the golapogos islands, and that worked out just fine.

That's what differentiates "good" scientists from "great" ones. That's why Richard Feynman was one of the most beloved physicists of all time. He could accurately and adequately explain his sciences. Most people have a hard time with that.

I've been looking to get a copy of some of his lectures on tape. They're suppposed to be amazing.

I know. However, some of the idiots may be more willing to listen to a fellow believer - even from a different church - than to one of the "atheist evilutionists".

I dunno. From what I've seen they listen to us even less, because they think we're bad believers or something.

Oh, and as for the best analogy for "Creation scientist" thinking I've ever seen:

http://a250.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/114/m_00e964c5c888eface3a3dc584d7d3c51.jpg

Deus, are you studying physics then? I would suggest to review your linear algebra for QM.

One more for the whole big bang discussion. The main task of the latter 20th century physicists (and now) is to discover what happens at smaller and smaller time/length scales. At the moment it is a concept of compacted dimensions, check it out. It's a completely mathematical concept which deduces that we can map one set of infinite dimensions into n+1 set of dimensions where that +1 dimension is "compacted". In other words it is finite. Surprisingly, this model works fairly well. The only downfall is that these dimensions are often ridiculously small. Given the length/time scale of such dimensions, a large energy is required to probe them. (This uncertainty is similar to the Heisenberg uncertainty) Now, once LHC turns on again, we may obtain the necessary terra-electronvolts to probe such dimensions. If these are found to be true, it would place us one step closer to the beginnings of the universe.

My eyes cannae read it, captain, they dinnae have the power!

EDIT: @ Dem, Hellsoft's thing was quite interesting.

If these are found to be true, it would place us one step closer to the beginnings of the universe.

The problem is that it doesn't take you *before* the beginning.

The problem is that it doesn't take you *before* the beginning.

So you pose the question of "before" the unvierse. Who cares. Given the concept of a time cone, the existence of "before" could never have any influence over our universe.

So you pose the question of "before" the unvierse. Who cares. Given the concept of a time cone, the existence of "before" could never have any influence over our universe.

You can't even say that.

How did the initial conditions arise? Mmmm?

Any answer you give is pure speculation.

Deus, are you studying physics then? I would suggest to review your linear algebra for QM.

Yup. Got another year and a half or so to go. Hmm...brushing up on linear algebra sounds like a good idea.

You can't even say that.

How did the initial conditions arise? Mmmm?

Any answer you give is pure speculation.

Not pure, based on what we have now. It's still speculation but it's grounded in current understanding.

"Magic did it" is pure speculation.

You can't even say that.

How did the initial conditions arise? Mmmm?

Any answer you give is pure speculation.

First, you need to become a bit more learned on the topic. Second, I can explain using a simple technique of amthematical progression from a known predicted phenomena.

1) Read up on muon decay in the atmosphere. Moving muons are known to decay slower than expected. This is the main experimental proof of Special Relativity's time dilation.

2) Time dilation leads us (mathematically) to the domination of light in our universe. All those fun key lines from Einstein.

3) Given the restriction of the speed of light, information cannot be transferred faster. Therefore, at our given time, only events within our "past" light cone can influence our present location in space-time.

4) Anything "before" the creation of light cannot influence any of our universe. So even if you like the "God created it" idea, our current universe just couldn't give a crap.

Yup. Got another year and a half or so to go. Hmm...brushing up on linear algebra sounds like a good idea.

Do you know what text you are using?

Do you know what text you are using?

Modern Quantum Mechanics, J. J. Sakurai, Revised Edition.

Just picked it up earlier today :)

A great ally of the Patafarian religion used to lie in ID. although are theories of intelligent design vs. unintelligent design (by the Flying Spaghetti Monster after a heavy drink...) might seem incompatible, we are both in the same boat and are trying to achieve equal time in the classroom for ID, UID, and scientific hypothesis with overwhelming evidence. Only when these three theories are taught, may our children recieve a proper view of the world. Unfortunately, I'm highly disappointed to hear that our great allies are losing grounds and are changing their viewpoint. I have a message for ID believers:
DON'T LOSE YOUR FAITH! just because others don't agree is no reason to alter your claim to gain support. To you despicable lost souls who lie in the most fundamental sides of the Darwinist faith I hope you look at some of the REAL evidence that actually points to UID on:
www.venganza.org
May you all be touched by his noodly appendage, rAmen.

4) Anything "before" the creation of light cannot influence any of our universe. So even if you like the "God created it" idea, our current universe just couldn't give a crap.

I think what RO is saying is that, even if the "before" can't change anything in the Universe now, it is in that "before" that the initial conditions for our Universe would have been determined. Thus, everything that has ever happened or ever will happen in our Universe has been affected by the "before", simply because of simple cause and effect.

Of course, this all assumes that there was a "before", and that the Universe itself has a beginning at all - something that is certainly not a universal belief.

In a sense, you are arguing the exact same thing as RO. Because we cannot interact with anything that occurred "before" our Universe, we cannot investigate what that "before" might have been. And, whatever that "before" might be, it isn't going to affect our ability to investigate the Universe itself.

First, you need to become a bit more learned on the topic. Second, I can explain using a simple technique of amthematical progression from a known predicted phenomena.

1) Read up on muon decay in the atmosphere. Moving muons are known to decay slower than expected. This is the main experimental proof of Special Relativity's time dilation.

2) Time dilation leads us (mathematically) to the domination of light in our universe. All those fun key lines from Einstein.

3) Given the restriction of the speed of light, information cannot be transferred faster. Therefore, at our given time, only events within our "past" light cone can influence our present location in space-time.

4) Anything "before" the creation of light cannot influence any of our universe. So even if you like the "God created it" idea, our current universe just couldn't give a crap.

Unfortunately, there are theories that include more than the universe we see now present at the Big Bang. Sure, they're all rolled up. But that doesn't mean they're inaccessible, or cannot be linked in some way to our own.

There are even some theories that speculate (grounded in "pulled out of our asses") that our universe is one of many bubbles forming and collapsing in a larger framework - in which case whatever is external can and may influence what goes on in our Universe. There is even speculation that these are interconnected by wormholes (more speculation).

3) Given the restriction of the speed of light, information cannot be transferred faster. Therefore, at our given time, only events within our "past" light cone can influence our present location in space-time.


This is only true when confined to our universe. If there are wormholes (and math shows they are possible), then it's certainly possible to have something avoid the whole speed of light/information transfer thing.

Modern Quantum Mechanics, J. J. Sakurai, Revised Edition.

Just picked it up earlier today :)

Good text, gets worse after chapter four though. Sakurai died and some of his students finished the book. Definitely look at all the Dirac notation as matrices, it will make your life a lot easier.

Unfortunately, there are theories that include more than the universe we see now present at the Big Bang. Sure, they're all rolled up. But that doesn't mean they're inaccessible, or cannot be linked in some way to our own.

There are even some theories that speculate (grounded in "pulled out of our asses") that our universe is one of many bubbles forming and collapsing in a larger framework - in which case whatever is external can and may influence what goes on in our Universe. There is even speculation that these are interconnected by wormholes (more speculation).



This is only true when confined to our universe. If there are wormholes (and math shows they are possible), then it's certainly possible to have something avoid the whole speed of light/information transfer thing.

So your argument is solely that because there exists theories that are "pulled out of its ass" that all theories are "pulled out of its ass." Hate to inform you on this one, but Einstein's theory is really, REALLY secure. To discredit that, you would discredit the observations of many phenomena which can be explained by it. NO OTHER THEORY explains all phenomena that realte time and space. Now we are trying to add a larger collection of phenomena. Many of the theories you have mentioned are considered junk in the physics community because of all the reasons we have been arguning against ID. So I wish to welcome you to our side of the debate.

Those of you who have followed the attempts of Creation 'Scientists' to pass off their ideas as a non-religious theory of Intelligent Design may be interested to know that they've come up with two new strategies:

1. Stop asking for Intelligent Design to be discussed in classrooms, now they're only referring to 'Critical analysis of evolution'. Naturally this critical analysis is just the same tired old ID arguments with references to 'design' taken out, just as ID textbooks were Creationist textbooks with God crudely editted out and replaced by an anonymous Designer. More information at the Panda's Thumb (http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/antievolutionis.html).

2. The second strategy is breath taking in its sheer chutzpah: "Yes, we have lots of scientists supporting Intelligent Design and they're doing lots of clever research, but it all has to be kept secret to stop those nasty Darwinists finding out". In this line of argument, they've awarded an award to an anonymous grad student (http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/312) and they're asserting that 20-30% of research into RNA synthesis is being hushed up because the implications are too controversial.

The real question is: are there really people out there gullible enough to buy this tripe? Sadly I feel compelled to say yes.


I think that regardless of whether design is intelligent or not, those pushing it as legitimate science clearly aren't. :p

So your argument is solely that because there exists theories that are "pulled out of its ass" that all theories are "pulled out of its ass." Hate to inform you on this one, but Einstein's theory is really, REALLY secure. To discredit that, you would discredit the observations of many phenomena which can be explained by it. NO OTHER THEORY explains all phenomena that realte time and space. Now we are trying to add a larger collection of phenomena. Many of the theories you have mentioned are considered junk in the physics community because of all the reasons we have been arguning against ID. So I wish to welcome you to our side of the debate.

I'm not saying Einstein is "pulled out of ass".

I'm saying that any theory that purports to explain what happened before, or somehow excludes what happened before is pulled out of ass.

See the difference?

There are theories about what exists OUTSIDE of the dimensions we can directly experiment with - and those are pure speculation (pulled out of ass) as much as any religion - but there are physicists and whole departments with grants to study that and publish books on it.

Just read anything Kaku wrote on the subject of hyperspace, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

Light cones are nice - for describing the observable universe - but nothing else - and it's a weak proof to say that nothing that existed before the Big Bang can influence the now. We already know that the math for wormholes is solid - not crap. Too many reputable physicists have published on the subject.

You have no repeatable, observable experiment for the Big Bang itself - you can't recreate the initial conditions in any lab. Lots of math - and observations of things like black holes - but not much else that would describe what happens to produce the initial conditions where all the forces are unified, etc. So it's the best we have - good math takes us to the Big Bang - but it's not "pure" science, because we'll NEVER repeat the experiment.

And the biggest reason why I am not a creationist NOR a supporter of intelligent design is that I am content with the knowledge that human science hasn't uncovered everything yet, if it is even possible to do so. So content, in fact, that I don't feel the need to fill in the gaps with fantasy.

I agree with my new friend here.

I have a question for you... would you say that the mystery is what makes evolutionary theory interesting? That it's like biting into a chocolate, not knowing if you're going to get a creamy centre or a solid centre, with the element of surprise leaving you to guess until you get there?

I like that mystery. Evolutionary theory is dynamic and great for the imagination. I hate creationism because it's stagnant and kind of real stale, leaving nothing to the imagination.

It's always exciting when there is a new chocolatey centre found in evolution, because no matter how many pieces you eat, there's still more. :)

We already know that the math for wormholes is solid - not crap.

You have no repeatable, observable experiment for the Big Bang itself - you can't recreate the initial conditions in any lab. Lots of math - and observations of things like black holes - but not much else that would describe what happens to produce the initial conditions where all the forces are unified, etc. So it's the best we have - good math takes us to the Big Bang - but it's not "pure" science, because we'll NEVER repeat the experiment.

Wormholes have their problems, even Hawkings has revised a lot of his work on the subject. As I said from the beginning, LHC may/may not prove the existence of the other dimesions. We are possibly on the eve of experimental data (in the laboratory) into some of these possibilities. The benefit that such theories have over ID is that they reduce down to known experimental results. ID on the other hand states that "God did it." I would argue that the two are very different. Nothing extrapolates to "God did it." That's the beginning and the end of ID. No real ideas, no real evidence, no real purpose.

Unfortunately, there are theories that include more than the universe we see now present at the Big Bang. Sure, they're all rolled up. But that doesn't mean they're inaccessible, or cannot be linked in some way to our own.

Incorrect. The universe is properly defined as "everything, everywhere, that is, or can be causally connected to here." If two universes intersect, they become a single, unified universe. There is only one universe as far as we'll ever be concerned. It's quite possible that there's others out there, that will never interact with ours, and by virtue of being causally disconnected from our own can never have an effect on it.

Basically, if you can travel somewhere, it's part of our universe. It doesn't matter how you get there.

How could RNA synthesis research help support their claims? What are these guys, scientologists? I would think it'd be just a tad sacrilidge for Evangelical Protestants to claim that God created us by synthesizing RNA in a mobile laboratory shortly before flying off in His hovercraft. (especially if homosexuality is so crazy-evil) The overt implication therin is that God is not omnipotent; something that everyone from Catholic priests to Protestant theologians to Orthodox bishops would immediately define as heresy.

How could RNA synthesis research help support their claims? What are these guys, scientologists? I would think it'd be just a tad sacrilidge for Evangelical Protestants to claim that God created us by synthesizing RNA in a mobile laboratory shortly before flying off in His hovercraft. (especially if homosexuality is so crazy-evil) The overt implication therin is that God is not omnipotent; something that everyone from Catholic priests to Protestant theologians to Orthodox bishops would immediately define as heresy.

That's why most Christians even believe these guys to be crackpots.

this is is a very American thing... In Europe you don't have this discussion.
Why is that?

I think it has to do with American culture about "freedom of...<fill in anything>"

These people find it a threat to their belief to be thought evolution. for them i think it feels like being forced to accept something that is totally different than what they think is right.

With all the people being American and all... they feel threatened that they aren't allowed to believe what they want to believe so they start saying stuff like: am i not allowed to believe this or that. They make their story so convincing that they make people feel that it is their right to believe whatever they believe.

This thing is that they still have that right but they are afraid that their children will not be like a good Christian or whatever... and that part is warped..

besides... most scientific discoveries are theories....quantumphysics is mostly based on a theory and that still works...

this is is a very American thing... In Europe you don't have this discussion.
Why is that?

I think it has to do with American culture about "freedom of...<fill in anything>"

These people find it a threat to their belief to be thought evolution. for them i think it feels like being forced to accept something that is totally different than what they think is right.

With all the people being American and all... they feel threatened that they aren't allowed to believe what they want to believe so they start saying stuff like: am i not allowed to believe this or that. They make their story so convincing that they make people feel that it is their right to believe whatever they believe.

This thing is that they still have that right but they are afraid that their children will not be like a good Christian or whatever... and that part is warped..

besides... most scientific discoveries are theories....quantumphysics is mostly based on a theory and that still works...

Remember, theory in natural science is something that can be used. It is not the layman's version of theory.

Theorem in maths is even better than the theory in natural science, as a theorem is a fact when applied within a certain set of axioms (all pre-defined by the theorem, naturally).

If you want what creationism (when opposed to evolution) is, you should look somewhere behind conjecture, which is what string theory is (as in, it's a guess that might or might not be true and it will take some testing before it becomes an actual theory).

Edit: I'd like to emphasize that mathematical theorems are 100% fact, where theories can never reach that. That doesn't mean theories cannot be factual.

besides... most scientific discoveries are theories....quantumphysics is mostly based on a theory and that still works...No shit. Some of them need to figure out that the word "theory" used in science doesn't mean what they think it means.

I like how Darwinism is being treated like a separate religion. Like every - uh - Tuesday, "Darwinist" get together and bow in front of his statue while a head speaker wears a clothe embroidered with the map of the Galapagos Islands and It all ends with the sacrifice of the weakest member of the convent.

Certified 100% siggability :D

I'm not saying Einstein is "pulled out of ass".

I'm saying that any theory that purports to explain what happened before, or somehow excludes what happened before is pulled out of ass.

See the difference?

There are theories about what exists OUTSIDE of the dimensions we can directly experiment with - and those are pure speculation (pulled out of ass) as much as any religion - but there are physicists and whole departments with grants to study that and publish books on it.

The difference here is that science admits to it being "pure speculation" - they are hypotheses. Religion does not admit to being speculation. Religion claims absolute truth.

Just read anything Kaku wrote on the subject of hyperspace, and you'll know what I'm talking about.

One bad paper does not bad science make.

Light cones are nice - for describing the observable universe - but nothing else - and it's a weak proof to say that nothing that existed before the Big Bang can influence the now. We already know that the math for wormholes is solid - not crap. Too many reputable physicists have published on the subject.

Wormholes are mathematically possible. So's a perfect sphere. Perfect spheres cannot exist in nature; possibly, neither can wormholes. Wormholes have a lot of causality violation problems.

Special relativity predicts that space and time are essentially the same thing, regulated by the speed of light, the universal speed limit. With a causality violating wormhole, we could go back in time, and negate (or cause) the big bang.

You have no repeatable, observable experiment for the Big Bang itself - you can't recreate the initial conditions in any lab.

Incorrect. They're doing this very thing at CERN at the moment.

Lots of math - and observations of things like black holes - but not much else that would describe what happens to produce the initial conditions where all the forces are unified, etc. So it's the best we have - good math takes us to the Big Bang - but it's not "pure" science, because we'll NEVER repeat the experiment.

We can potentially repeat the experiment. Naturally it'd be a bad idea, but if it happened once, it can happen again, theoretically. You are not in a position to say that it cannot be repeated.

Before I go and have my say, let me announce that I am most definitely NOT a creationist and believe firmly in evolution as the best explanation of observable life.

But - at the end of the day, those here defending creationism and evolution all are standing on a foundation of faith. Or rather a set of beliefs that have yet to be proven true but are accepted as being true. And whatever is built on that foundation is only as strong as that foundation.

For example: one of the basic beliefs in science is regularity. Observe "if x then y" enough times and it's a short step to say that x causes y. If you've never observed y without x (or "if not y then not x"), then you say "x causes y" with even more conviction. It's still inductive reasoning, and no matter how much evidence you gather it's going to stay inductive reasoning and not transform to deductive reasoning.

Unfortunately, you never have proven that x causes y. Only that there has always been a very strong correlation of it. Maybe even a statistical certainty - but just because something has always happened in the past doesn't mean that it will always happen in the future.

There are also plenty of other assumptions that we accept as true in science. That the laws of nature are the same everywhere, for example. We HAVE to take that as true in order to make any kind of rational sense out of what we're looking at - but that doesn't mean that it IS true.

Science does seem to provide a much better explanation of the world around us than any religious text. By that I mean it is more consistent and coherent. But that, in and of itself, only suggests truth; it doesn't prove truth. If we discard Occam's Razor then there are an infinite number of theories that will explain what we see equally well - as long as the extra bit has nothing to do with what we'd call the 'real' explanation and is also true.

It's going to come down to each individual's reason for using this set of fundamental beliefs over that set of fundamental beliefs. Science does seem to be more rigorous in moving from it's foundation of axioms to conclusions than religious explanations, and those axioms do seem to be more intuitively correct (cause and effect, what's true for here is true for there, etc.) but that doesn't remove that, at the end of the day, those axioms need to be accepted on faith.

If you don't have the opportunity to take a class in the philosophy of science then check out a couple of books - a look at an on-line syllabus from a university offering the course should list a couple of titles - and take a look at what's going on there. It's a fascinating field and a real eye-opener.

(This from someone with a degree in mathematics, major in philosophy and a minor in physics, by the way.)

Wormholes are mathematically possible. So's a perfect sphere. Perfect spheres cannot exist in nature; possibly, neither can wormholes. Wormholes have a lot of causality violation problems.

This is my problem with a lot of modern physics. Speculation is so far beyond our current ability to gather empirical data that much of what is being discussed is stuck in the realm of pure hypothesis indefinitely. The only "evidence" discussed is "The mathematical models we've come up with require it/ make it possible.

Incorrect. They're doing this very thing at CERN at the moment. Recreating the initial conditions of the Big Bang? I'm just a tad skeptical on that claim.

We can potentially repeat the experiment. Naturally it'd be a bad idea, but if it happened once, it can happen again, theoretically. You are not in a position to say that it cannot be repeated.

I highly doubt we'll ever be creating our own Universe.

For example: one of the basic beliefs in science is regularity. Observe "if x then y" enough times and it's a short step to say that x causes y. If you've never observed y without x (or "if not y then not x"), then you say "x causes y" with even more conviction. It's still inductive reasoning, and no matter how much evidence you gather it's going to stay inductive reasoning and not transform to deductive reasoning.

Unfortunately, you never have proven that x causes y. Only that there has always been a very strong correlation of it. Maybe even a statistical certainty - but just because something has always happened in the past doesn't mean that it will always happen in the future.

There are also plenty of other assumptions that we accept as true in science. That the laws of nature are the same everywhere, for example. We HAVE to take that as true in order to make any kind of rational sense out of what we're looking at - but that doesn't mean that it IS true.

A very Humean argument; allow me to respond by quoting his Cleanthes from Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion:

Whether your scepticism be as absolute and sincere as you pretend, we shall learn by and by, when the company breaks up: we shall then see, whether you go out at the door or the window; and whether you really doubt if your body has gravity, or can be injured by its fall; according to popular opinion, derived from our fallacious senses, and more fallacious experience. And this consideration, Demea, may, I think, fairly serve to abate our ill-will to this humourous sect of the sceptics. If they be thoroughly in earnest, they will not long trouble the world with their doubts, cavils, and disputes: if they be only in jest, they are, perhaps, bad railers; but can never be very dangerous, either to the state, to philosophy, or to religion.

Yep - I might not be able to prove that the door is there, but I'll always go through it rather than trying to leave the room through a wall!

But just because I do end up using the door doesn't mean that the wall is there. And even if I do believe the wall is there that doesn't mean it really is there. Only that, for whatever reason, I chose to go through the door and not the wall.

I'm not prepared to say that science has the Truth of things. Only a very good explanation that appears to correspond to how reality seems to be.

And - it still doesn't promote what is fundamentally inductive reasoning to deductive reasoning. That step is still a faith-based move. There's no getting around that.

Recreating the initial conditions of the Big Bang? I'm just a tad skeptical on that claim.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/physicists_bigbang_000209_wg.html

What I don't get about creationists is why they HAVE to invade public schools. They have private schools, churches, day camps, radio and TV stations, the internet, and billboards. So if they wanted to they could go from church to home to private school to day camp -- and NEVER hear Christianity challenged.

Compare this to a Hindu child. He probably doesn't go to a private Hindu School, he never sees Hindu run TV stations, never listens to Hindu radio, He'll never come to a billboard that proclaims "SHIVA is LORD" in neon green letters. At best, American society will ignore his religious beliefs, and he'll get a public education that is neutral to religion.

What I think is really driving the CS or ID (if you prefer) movements is that they want to take a place that is neutral to religion and make it Christian. It fits with other things Christians want -- prayer in schools, the ability to put up the Ten Commandments just about everywhere, and other such things -- is to essentially make America an officially Christian nation where the First Amendment means "We won't arrest you for not being a Christian".

Personally, what I'd do in a meeting where the Yokels propose ID is to second the motion -- except make the creation story obviously Pagan -- multiple designers (after all, most things are designed by commitees), perhaps with oblique references to some Diety maybe Zues or Amaratsu or something. Then watch them squirm. They can't go back (it's science ain't it?), yet going forward means promoting Zeus, not Jay-sus. :upyours:

But - at the end of the day, those here defending creationism and evolution all are standing on a foundation of faith.

No. Evolution will, can and does feed me, creationism cannot.

Unfortunately, you never have proven that x causes y. Only that there has always been a very strong correlation of it. Maybe even a statistical certainty - but just because something has always happened in the past doesn't mean that it will always happen in the future.

So I guess gravity doesn't mean anything to you?

Sure it could change, but the chances that it will are so low that we can effectively dismiss them.

There are also plenty of other assumptions that we accept as true in science. That the laws of nature are the same everywhere, for example. We HAVE to take that as true in order to make any kind of rational sense out of what we're looking at - but that doesn't mean that it IS true.

Of course, but we also haven't actually reached any place beyond our solar system - only gazed at it. We have much to learn.

Science does seem to provide a much better explanation of the world around us than any religious text. By that I mean it is more consistent and coherent. But that, in and of itself, only suggests truth; it doesn't prove truth.

Exactly. We're not trying to prove truth. Truth is what religion deals in and often the kind of flimsy truth that, for example, creationism is.

If you don't have the opportunity to take a class in the philosophy of science

Ahh. A humanist discussing science? :p

(This from someone with a degree in mathematics, major in philosophy and a minor in physics, by the way.)

Yeah, I think I'll define you as a humanist ;) but you're alright in my books. You're scientific enough.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/physicists_bigbang_000209_wg.html

From the very first sentence:
For the first time, physicists have created a new form of matter by recreating the conditions thought to have existed 10 microseconds after the Big Bang at the start of the universe, scientists announced on Thursday.

Those aren't the initial conditions of the Big Bang.

Scott Adams had a blog post about evolution; it's right here (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/fossils_are_bul.html). I don't agree with it, but it's the first time I've seen a non-Creationist decry evolution.

I personally don't think that Creation "Science" should be taught in schools, but I'm also against teaching Evolution "Science" for the same reasons. There is insufficient evidence to have a theory of origins.

The whole Evolution-Creationism thing is pointless because nobody will ever know which is correct. It is very possible that "God created the heavens and the Earth" in 7 days and it is also very possible "man evolved from monkeys."

This is much like if they were to come out with a "scientific" theory of what happens after death that decided that everybody is reincarnated. Of course, Christians would criticize the theory and claim that people aren't reincarnated after death, but rather that they go to Heaven or Hell. This is an apt description of the Evolution-Creation debate. Neither should be taught in schools or passed off as science.

I personally don't think that Creation "Science" should be taught in schools, but I'm also against teaching Evolution "Science" for the same reasons. There is insufficient evidence to have a theory of origins.

Evolution is not a theory of origins.

Evolution is not a theory of origins.Yes it is, but only of organisms, not life itself. That said, I can't see why the various hypotheses about abiogenesis shouldn't be covered in science classes.

Yes it is, but only of organisms, not life itself. That said, I can't see why the various hypotheses about abiogenesis shouldn't be covered in science classes.

Well it does cover the origin of life as it appears today, but I figured he meant origins of life itself.

Scott Adams had a blog post about evolution; it's right here (http://dilbertblog.typepad.com/the_dilbert_blog/2007/03/fossils_are_bul.html). I don't agree with it, but it's the first time I've seen a non-Creationist decry evolution.
I'm not going to say he has no fucking idea what he is talking about because he appears to. But this just looks like "I hate the scientific method" more than "evolution is bullshit and look at my 'well-reasoned' evidence to prove so!" It is beliefs like that which quickly lead to believing in invisible men residing over various elements and abilities.

it is also very possible "man evolved from monkeys."

It is? I've never heard anyone but someone who doesn't understand the theory of evolution make claims like that.

This is much like if they were to come out with a "scientific" theory of what happens after death that decided that everybody is reincarnated.

You don't like science? Is that why you've got "scientific" in quotes everywhere you use it? I doubt you're going to get science out of the schools any time soon.

I personally don't think that Creation "Science" should be taught in schools, but I'm also against teaching Evolution "Science" for the same reasons. There is insufficient evidence to have a theory of origins.

The whole Evolution-Creationism thing is pointless because nobody will ever know which is correct. It is very possible that "God created the heavens and the Earth" in 7 days and it is also very possible "man evolved from monkeys."
I do not think either of the possibilities you raise are even plausible. Even if the truth of the statement regarding their high possibility is accepted, this does not demonstrate pointlessness.

This is much like if they were to come out with a "scientific" theory of what happens after death that decided that everybody is reincarnated. Of course, Christians would criticize the theory and claim that people aren't reincarnated after death, but rather that they go to Heaven or Hell. This is an apt description of the Evolution-Creation debate.
No it is not an apt description of the evolution-creation debate.

Neither should be taught in schools or passed off as science.
What?
What meaning are you attributing to the word 'science'? :confused:

Darwinism has nothing to do with creative power. It does have everything to do with analysing ALL facts not just choice ones then use of the Bible. That website you linked solely begs the question. Never does it answer anything. All it says it that the Bible is correct because we interpretted correctly and everyone else did not. Yet this is the exact argument for why we should not believe scientists. Because they "interpret" the facts. Now there thermodynamics argument just completely shows a lack of knowledge in the subject of physics. Being a couple years from obtaining a PhD in physics, I will claim that their thoughts on the second law is a joke, because yet again it is not all inclusive. It picks and chooses what facts they wish to use.

Entropy only applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system. Energy from the sun is continually added to the biosphere, as well as thermal energy from vulcanism.

Well it does cover the origin of life as it appears today, but I figured he meant origins of life itself.Your point was perfectly obvious. Your post was just too open to dishonest hairsplitting, so I thought I'd try to preempt it. Who knows, might save us a few gray hairs ;)

I personally don't think that Creation "Science" should be taught in schools, but I'm also against teaching Evolution "Science" for the same reasons. There is insufficient evidence to have a theory of origins.
The difference is that one (literalized Creationism) addresses the origin of everything, and the other addresses the origin of species from other species. There is more than sufficient evidence (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VC1aModesSpeciation.shtml) for the latter.

The whole Evolution-Creationism thing is pointless because nobody will ever know which is correct. It is very possible that "God created the heavens and the Earth" in 7 days and it is also very possible "man evolved from monkeys."

This is much like if they were to come out with a "scientific" theory of what happens after death that decided that everybody is reincarnated. Of course, Christians would criticize the theory and claim that people aren't reincarnated after death, but rather that they go to Heaven or Hell. This is an apt description of the Evolution-Creation debate. Neither should be taught in schools or passed off as science.
Neither is "the correct one," but correctness is not the issue. The issue is whether to teach Creationism in science class. The Theory of Evolution is a scientific one.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’ with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’ Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson


The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

Wow. That was the most articulate and erudite stupidity I've ever read. I particularly liked the rebunking of the 2nd law of thermodynamics anti-evolution argument. "Yes scientists can explain why the apparent contradiction of the 2nd Law and Evolution is not in fact a contradiction, but the fact remains that it still appears to be a contradiction." You have to be a really sophisticated thinker to be that stupid. It's a bit like that equation that "proves" that one equals two.

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

And:

“One way or another, Darwinists meet the question ‘Is Darwinism true?’ with an answer that amounts to an assertion of power: ‘Well, it is science, as we define science, and you will have to be content with that.’ Some of us are not content with that, because we know that the empirical evidence for the creative power of natural selection is somewhere between weak and non-existent. Artificial selection of fruit flies or domestic animals produces limited change within the species, but tells us nothing about how insects and mammals came into existence in the first place. In any case, whatever artificial selection achieves is due to the employment of human intelligence consciously pursuing a goal. The whole point of the blind watchmaker thesis, however, is to establish what material processes can do in the absence of purpose and intelligence. That Darwinist authorities continually overlook this crucial distinction gives us little confidence in their objectivity.”
-Philip E. Johnson


The first is evidence against Darwinian/Macro-evolution, and the second is the explanation of why I accept that evidence. Because for all the whining, screaming and witch hunting of evolutionists, they still have no sufficient evidence. Necessary evidence? Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

A. There is no witchhunting, screaming, or whining coming from evolutionists. That's all coming from the fundies.

B. There are no alternative theories. Crediting God or any other god with creating life is not a testable hypothesis, and thus can't be a theory. That whole "you'll get an answer that amounts to an assertion of power," is bullshit. It's like saying painters are asserting their power over bakers by saying "you can't paint a house with muffins because muffins aren't housepaint."

I personally don't think that Creation "Science" should be taught in schools, but I'm also against teaching Evolution "Science" for the same reasons. There is insufficient evidence to have a theory of origins.

The whole Evolution-Creationism thing is pointless because nobody will ever know which is correct. It is very possible that "God created the heavens and the Earth" in 7 days and it is also very possible "man evolved from monkeys."

This is much like if they were to come out with a "scientific" theory of what happens after death that decided that everybody is reincarnated. Of course, Christians would criticize the theory and claim that people aren't reincarnated after death, but rather that they go to Heaven or Hell. This is an apt description of the Evolution-Creation debate. Neither should be taught in schools or passed off as science.

That just isn't true. There is plenty of evidence behind the theory of evolution and it leads to reliable predictions. Creationism doesn't, that's why one is science, the other is not.

An education in science isn't about teaching which has been proven true. It's about teaching how scientists find their information. An education in evolution helps provide that. Creationism doesn't. That's why one deserves a place in the science classroom, the other doesn't.

Yes, but not sufficient evidence, and until they sufficient evidence, we ought to be able to teach alternate theories.

You don't have an alternate theory. You have "God did it because I'm too simple to understand how science works."

And you don't have any evidence. Period.

Yeah, I think I'll define you as a humanist ;) but you're alright in my books. You're scientific enough.

Actually - I follow Asatru. A form of Norse paganism for those that don't know what it is. Done the Christianity, atheism, and agnostic thingies and they didn't work for me. Asatru does for me today. :)

But what I was getting at is that we all have some basic assumptions that we take as true, or at least move about in the world as if they are true - which is arguably essentially the same thing, without having absolute and irrefutable proof that they are true. They're based upon our experiences and other beliefs, and at some point we conclude that they are, indeed, true. Science and religion aren't all that different in that regard. Where they are different is in (to only list a few) how to deal with those basic assumptions (science is more open to having them challenged than religions generally are) and just what those assumptions are (God exists vs. if an apple falls due to gravity here it will fall due to gravity over there).

Also - let's not forget that science and religion are asking different questions, which I strongly suspect that the Creationists have done. Religion was never intended to answer "what is the airspeed of an unladened swallow" but rather "why is there a swallow". Not the process for how it got to exist, but the meaning behind its existance.

I find it hilarious that the Creationists are claiming that they want to avoid controversy. That's like Mike Tyson taking a stand against cannibalism.

I find it hilarious that the Creationists are claiming that they want to avoid controversy. That's like Mike Tyson taking a stand against cannibalism.

Mmmm... delicious ears... served in a paper cone! Now with 20 different varieties of sauces! But we have no mustard, but something called "America sauce". ;)

Actually - I follow Asatru. A form of Norse paganism for those that don't know what it is. Done the Christianity, atheism, and agnostic thingies and they didn't work for me. Asatru does for me today. :)

Humanist in Denmark is as opposed to us Engineers and Natural Science dudes. So, someone studying literature would be a humanist. Someone studying philosophy would be a humanist as well. I'm not referring to humanist the religion.

Also - let's not forget that science and religion are asking different questions, which I strongly suspect that the Creationists have done. Religion was never intended to answer "what is the airspeed of an unladened swallow" but rather "why is there a swallow". Not the process for how it got to exist, but the meaning behind its existance.

But they're misunderstanding evolution as being the question of "why is there a swallow?" as opposed to "What was the swallow like before, what is it like now and what will it be like in the future?"

Entropy only applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system. Energy from the sun is continually added to the biosphere, as well as thermal energy from vulcanism.

Again, you only wish to apply 10% of what thermodynamics tells us, "because it fits."

*snip*

You're a silly man. You just jumped in the ring with Hulk Hogan and Andre the Giant and called them both stupidheads, while you don't actually realize you're only 4'2'' with little to no muscle mass in argument.

You're going to die here, today.

I believe that God created the Universe.*snip*

Great! Too bad the beginning of the universe has little to nothing to do with the evolution of life on Earth.

Do you consider Creationism a science?

Hey! Where the fuck you been?

I like how Darwinism is being treated like a separate religion. Like every - uh - Tuesday, "Darwinist" get together and bow in front of his statue while a head speaker wears a clothe embroidered with the map of the Galapagos Islands and It all ends with the sacrifice of the weakest member of the convent.

Nono, that's the Mormons.

Yes it is, but only of organisms, not life itself. That said, I can't see why the various hypotheses about abiogenesis shouldn't be covered in science classes.

Because evolution has vastly more evidence and information for its theory than others? Once the others find a place in the realm of modern science, we will test is like we test evolution, and if it holds up, it may be taught alongside it.

A. There is no witchhunting, screaming, or whining coming from evolutionists. That's all coming from the fundies.

B. There are no alternative theories. Crediting God or any other god with creating life is not a testable hypothesis, and thus can't be a theory. That whole "you'll get an answer that amounts to an assertion of power," is bullshit. It's like saying painters are asserting their power over bakers by saying "you can't paint a house with muffins because muffins aren't housepaint."

... It isn't? Shit, hold on, lemme go get the power washer...

Mmmm... delicious ears... served in a paper cone! Now with 20 different varieties of sauces! But we have no mustard, but something called "America sauce". ;)

"America Sauce" aka "Freedom Juice".

"America Sauce" aka "Freedom Juice".
that sounds like a euphemism for some other type of 'juice'.
y'know:
nutjuice
manberry juice
love juice
man milk

..and so on

that sounds like a euphemism for some other type of 'juice'.
y'know:
nutjuice
manberry juice
love juice
man milk

..and so on

Population pudding.

But they're misunderstanding evolution as being the question of "why is there a swallow?" as opposed to "What was the swallow like before, what is it like now and what will it be like in the future?"

Exactly! Actually, I think it's more that they're feeling insecure in their own worldview and they're trying to legitimize what they have by claiming they fall under the mantle of the dominant system providing answers. They're also seeing a conflict where there doesn't need to be one (I've been taught physics by an ordained Lutheran pastor). They've forgotten that science and religion ask different questions, have different methods, and have different purposes.

Exactly! Actually, I think it's more that they're feeling insecure in their own worldview and they're trying to legitimize what they have by claiming they fall under the mantle of the dominant system providing answers. They're also seeing a conflict where there doesn't need to be one (I've been taught physics by an ordained Lutheran pastor). They've forgotten that science and religion ask different questions, have different methods, and have different purposes.

Well the conflict is where fundamentalism tries to butt its way into the territory of science. It can't tell us how old the world is, it can't tell us whether or not we're descendant from a common ancestor of a previous animal, and it can't tell us when life begins.

:headbang:

people what i meat on page 6 was The Theory on Evolution (cause it is still a theory, see wikipedia and Darwins writing about it) is the first scientific theory to be scrutinised by religeus fanatics... but science isn't exact at all. It is based on theories and theories and theories... like the Nonsymmetric gravitational theory or even simpler. the theory about the build of an atom. theories evolve over time when there is more proof found... and that is the same with the Evolution Theory more and more proof is being found of the origin of humans.

so anyway when the Evolution theory is considered "wrong" which one will be next?

Right.

Well, they can try but then it's reasonable to ask them to show why they are right as opposed to, say, the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

:headbang:

people what i meat on page 6 was The Theory on Evolution (cause it is still a theory, see wikipedia and Darwins writing about it) is the first scientific theory to be scrutinised by religeus fanatics... but science isn't exact at all. It is based on theories and theories and theories... like the Nonsymmetric gravitational theory or even simpler. the theory about the build of an atom. theories evolve over time when there is more proof found... and that is the same with the Evolution Theory more and more proof is being found of the origin of humans.

so anyway when the Evolution theory is considered "wrong" which one will be next?

Wholly crap, another one that doesn't know what the word "theory" means.

Evolution will most likely not ever be considered "wrong", much like the creation of Einstein's physics does not make Newton's laws "wrong".

:headbang:

people what i meat on page 6 was The Theory on Evolution (cause it is still a theory, see wikipedia and Darwins writing about it) is the first scientific theory to be scrutinised by religeus fanatics... but science isn't exact at all. It is based on theories and theories and theories... like the Nonsymmetric gravitational theory or even simpler. the theory about the build of an atom. theories evolve over time when there is more proof found... and that is the same with the Evolution Theory more and more proof is being found of the origin of humans.

so anyway when the Evolution theory is considered "wrong" which one will be next?

Yes, it's a theory. Just don't confuse what the definition of "theory" is in a scientific context with what the definition of "theory" is outside of one.

From Dictionary.com: "
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact."

Evolution falls under #1. Creationism under #2. The most telling point is that there is yet to be any evidence of an Intelligent Creator behind the Universe. Science, at least, says quite openly that what happened before where we can propose questions falls outside of science, and we just don't know and can't say.

And Evolution can only be considered as being found to be "wrong" if you use a very very strict definition of what "wrong" means; just as Newtonian Mechanics aren't "wrong" - they're a special case of Einsteinian Relativity which explains things more generally, in more detail, and with more accuracy.

:headbang:

people what i meat on page 6 was The Theory on Evolution (cause it is still a theory, see wikipedia and Darwins writing about it) is the first scientific theory to be scrutinised by religeus fanatics... but science isn't exact at all. It is based on theories and theories and theories... like the Nonsymmetric gravitational theory or even simpler. the theory about the build of an atom. theories evolve over time when there is more proof found... and that is the same with the Evolution Theory more and more proof is being found of the origin of humans.

so anyway when the Evolution theory is considered "wrong" which one will be next?

I might be tempted to ask why you think that the theory of evolution is in any way a problem for it? I mean, it still helps to feed me; something which creationism will never accomplish.

sorry but i do know what a theory is... a theory is a model that discribes the behaviour a phenomena.

Albert Einstein put forth his Special Theory of Relativity based on an assumption. He took two phenomena which had been observed — that the "addition of velocities" is valid (Galilean transformation), and that light did not appear to have an "addition of velocities" (Michelson-Morley experiment). He assumed both observations to be correct, and formulated his theory, based on these assumptions, by simply altering the Galilean transformation to accommodate the lack of addition of velocities with regard to the speed of light. The model created in his theory is, therefore, based on the assumption that light maintains a constant velocity (or more precisely: the speed of light is a constant).

and bohrs model is based on a theory on how an atom look like but it has never proven experimentally... only the the effects can be proven and explained. you should see the older theories of how scientist thought how an atom was made up. There was a cubic theory a plum pudding theory and Saturnian theory about it.

Evolution is called a theory because you can't recreate evolution as an experiment to prove it as a Law. but you can prove the effects through archaeology.

but what makes evolution better then this intelligent design is; that there is more proof about it then this intelligent design

Evolution is called a theory because you can't recreate evolution as an experiment to prove it as a Law. but you can prove the effects through archaeology.

This statement is incorrect. Science cannot be used to "prove" anything. That isn't how the method works. A Law isn't more "proven" than a theory and is still open to disproof, just as a theory is.

but what makes evolution better then this intelligent design is; that there is more proof about it then this intelligent design

Well, that and the fact that ID is not falsifiable, and therefore utterly unscientific.

Pardon the super long cut-and-paste, but this is a good explanation of what a scientific law is and isn't, and what a scientific theory is and isn't.

Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to explain, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and univseral, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

Hypothesis: This is an educated guess based upon observation. It is a rational explanation of a single event or phenomenon based upon what is observed, but which has not been proved. Most hypotheses can be supported or refuted by experimentation or continued observation.

Theory: A theory is more like a scientific law than a hypothesis. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. One scientist cannot create a theory; he can only create a hypothesis.

In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.

In fact, some laws, such as the law of gravity, can also be theories when taken more generally. The law of gravity is expressed as a single mathematical expression and is presumed to be true all over the universe and all through time. Without such an assumption, we can do no science based on gravity's effects. But from the law, we derived Einstein's General Theory of Relativity in which gravity plays a crucial role. The basic law is intact, but the theory expands it to include various and complex situations involving space and time.

The biggest difference between a law and a theory is that a theory is much more complex and dynamic. A law governs a single action, whereas a theory explains an entire group of related phenomena.

So - a theory is basically a collection of things, while a law is a single thing. Not as you characterized it.

and creationalism totally ignores all other beliefs but think that their intelligent design should be just as important as evolution... i think other cultures like hinduism and buddism think different about this intelligent design

and creationalism totally ignores all other beliefs but think that their intelligent design should be just as important as evolution... i think other cultures like hinduism and buddism think different about this intelligent design

I think I just felt my brain implode...

And pray tell, what is this "creationalism"?

and creationalism totally ignores all other beliefs but think that their intelligent design should be just as important as evolution... i think other cultures like hinduism and buddism think different about this intelligent design

And all the aboriginal tribes. And the Greeks, Romans, and all other pseudo-Mesopotamian cultures. And the Inuits, I bet. And the Hawaiians. And everyone in Asia.

I think I just felt my brain implode...

And pray tell, what is this "creationalism"?

Y'know, it's like Creationism, except with alchemy involved. =D

and bohrs model is based on a theory on how an atom look like but it has never proven experimentally... only the the effects can be proven and explained. you should see the older theories of how scientist thought how an atom was made up. There was a cubic theory a plum pudding theory and Saturnian theory about it.

Ever heard about AFM? STM?

Those might explain why we adopted new theories about the atom.

Evolution is called a theory because you can't recreate evolution as an experiment to prove it as a Law. but you can prove the effects through archaeology.

You fail at understanding the difference between theory and law.

And you can, in fact, re-create evolution in fruit flies, for example, and plants. Both reproduce at a sufficiently fast rate to be able to be studied within a human lifetime.

How long before someone appeals to the existence of undetectably small animalcules?

How long before someone appeals to the existence of undetectably small animalcules?

I do believe there's a circulating idea that says that our universe is an atom, or a quark, or some other infinitely small thing, and we're simply part of a larger thing, which is another version of our universe, which is, to yet another universe, only an atom again.

It's interesting to think about, but I don't think we'll ever have any proof for it.

This statement is incorrect. Science cannot be used to "prove" anything. That isn't how the method works. A Law isn't more "proven" than a theory and is still open to disproof, just as a theory is.


Question:

Why then, so we so often see people on this forum insist that Evolution is "proven?"

Question:

Why then, so we so often see people on this forum insist that Evolution is "proven?"

For the same reason that we see people complaining that Evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught in schools because it hasn't been proven - they don't understand the scientific method.

Either that, or they're using "proven" to mean, "well-supported by evidence", but that usage tends to get confusing because so many people take it to mean, "Absolutely 100%, without a doubt, true."

For the same reason that we see people complaining that Evolutionary theory shouldn't be taught in schools because it hasn't been proven - they don't understand the scientific method.

Either that, or they're using "proven" to mean, "well-supported by evidence", but that usage tends to get confusing because so many people take it to mean, "Absolutely 100%, without a doubt, true."

That's where I have a problem. oftimes I've seen people debate for Evolution using exactly that meaning. Thsy use the 100% certainty they attach to Evolution as an excuse to ignore any other argument from a known Creationist.

While trumpeting their faithfulness to the scientific method out of one side of their mouth, they completely ignore possible valid arguments from their opponents and justify it because of the absolute certainty of their rightness, insulting and attacking other arguments without honestly looking at them out of the other side of their mouth.

Not everybody does this, but some of the most vociferous do.

That's where I have a problem. oftimes I've seen people debate for Evolution using exactly that meaning. Thsy use the 100% certainty they attach to Evolution as an excuse to ignore any other argument from a known Creationist.

While trumpeting their faithfulness to the scientific method out of one side of their mouth, they completely ignore possible valid arguments from their opponents and justify it because of the absolute certainty of their rightness, insulting and attacking other arguments without honestly looking at them out of the other side of their mouth.

Not everybody does this, but some of the most vociferous do.

It isn't 100% certain because absolutely nothing can ever be 100% certain. Like I cannot be 100% certain that you would die if you jumped off the top of the Empire State building. I'm fairly certain you would, but we cannot be 100% certain of it.

There is also the very real possibility that I could walk through a brick wall - that could actually happen, it is physically possible, it is just so improbable that it is unlikely to happen no matter how many billions of years I try.

Do you honestly believe that a very slim chance that evolutionary theory is wrong is proof of creationism?

:rolleyes:

Two reasons why I'm a Creationist:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp




I signed up for that newsletter to come to my house. Its a good read for toilet time.

Question:

Why then, so we so often see people on this forum insist that Evolution is "proven?"

Proven as far as a scientific theory can be proven, basically.

That's where I have a problem. oftimes I've seen people debate for Evolution using exactly that meaning. Thsy use the 100% certainty they attach to Evolution as an excuse to ignore any other argument from a known Creationist.

While trumpeting their faithfulness to the scientific method out of one side of their mouth, they completely ignore possible valid arguments from their opponents and justify it because of the absolute certainty of their rightness, insulting and attacking other arguments without honestly looking at them out of the other side of their mouth.

Not everybody does this, but some of the most vociferous do.

It's out of habit. Most, if not all creationist arguments are complete and utter BS, made either out of a woefully small amount of knowledge as to what science really is, or out of a seeming hatred and utter spite for what it may be.

Either way, the arguments are, for the most part, not worth paying attention to.

Again, you only wish to apply 10% of what thermodynamics tells us, "because it fits."

There has only ever been one Thermodynamics related rejection of evolutionary theory, and that has been the entropy straw man. You are blatantly ignoring the facts because it fits with your preconceived notions about evolution. Cognitive dissonance will take over, and you will not listen to a word that I'm saying.

And you have the balls to say we're the one's ignoring evidence?!! :headbang:

It isn't 100% certain because absolutely nothing can ever be 100% certain. Like I cannot be 100% certain that you would die if you jumped off the top of the Empire State building. I'm fairly certain you would, but we cannot be 100% certain of it.

There is also the very real possibility that I could walk through a brick wall - that could actually happen, it is physically possible, it is just so improbable that it is unlikely to happen no matter how many billions of years I try.

Do you honestly believe that a very slim chance that evolutionary theory is wrong is proof of creationism?

No. My point is that the level of uncertainty itself is often the subject of the debate. Proponents of Evolution minimize it, Proponents of ID maximize it. The truth is somewhere in between.

Either way, it still doesn't justify treating it as an absolute.

No. My point is that the level of uncertainty itself is often the subject of the debate. Proponents of Evolution minimize it, Proponents of ID maximize it. The truth is somewhere in between.

Either way, it still doesn't justify treating it as an absolute.

No, not really. I don't see any reason to suggest that the truth is anywhere near creationism or ID, or for that matter anywhere between it and evolution.

And you don't have to capitalize evolution. It's not God.

Either way, it still doesn't justify treating it as an absolute.

True that. Then again, it is a fact that in terms of scientific quality the theory of evolution currently stands far above all known alternatives, while creationism is actually below quite a few. While one can argue that children should be taught an alternative hypothesis, just to emphasise that the theory of evolution should not be taken as an absolute truth, suggesting that creationism should be that hypothesis is silly.

No. My point is that the level of uncertainty itself is often the subject of the debate. Proponents of Evolution minimize it, Proponents of ID maximize it. The truth is somewhere in between.

Either way, it still doesn't justify treating it as an absolute.
Somehow when I make exactly the same point regarding global warming science I get shot down...

sorry but i do know what a theory is... a theory is a model that discribes the behaviour a phenomena.

That's not what a theory is. That's not even remotely what a theory is. That is what is known as an observation. A theory explains how what is observed occurs. Theories do not deal with the what. They deal with the how.

Somehow when I make exactly the same point regarding global warming science I get shot down...

That's because it's not a valid point.

Evolution falls under #1. Creationism under #2. The most telling point is that there is yet to be any evidence of an Intelligent Creator behind the Universe. Science, at least, says quite openly that what happened before where we can propose questions falls outside of science, and we just don't know and can't say.

As the Hawkman put it.


The universe began as a singularity.
Nobody knows what went on then, G.
For ten million trillion trillion trillionths of a second,
the state of the universe cannot be reckoned.

It most certainly does not use science. They might try to imitate science but they deny the very foundatios of the scientific method: evidence based reasoning.

To quote their statement of faith (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp):



"If reality contradicts the Bible, then reality is in the wrong". Yep, that sounds scientific to me...

Wow, now that's chutzpah! Openly saying in your opening statement that you plan to ignore any evidence that contradicts your pre-conceived assumption. Wow! At least they're open about it.:eek::headbang:

Somehow when I make exactly the same point regarding global warming science I get shot down...

Hmmm?

Wasn't your arguments revolving around a mathematician while others were referencing climatologists?

I think those theories that contradict the Flying Spaghetti Monster Theory of Intelligent Pasta have serious, gaping, obvious weaknesses which, although I'm far too superior to elaborate on in any meaningful way, I feel should be discussed in all classrooms.

lol.
I think the problem here is really that creationists are relying on the Bible as scientific fact, and one that does not need 'significant proof' like evolution does...
it's a really screwed up situation that really comes down to how literally (or at all) you believe the Bible.

I do believe there's a circulating idea that says that our universe is an atom, or a quark, or some other infinitely small thing, and we're simply part of a larger thing, which is another version of our universe, which is, to yet another universe, only an atom again.

It's interesting to think about, but I don't think we'll ever have any proof for it.

My personal favorite characterization of our universe is as a single bubble among uncounted numbers of bubbles in a stein of beer that is in the act of being chugged by a philosophy student.

lol.
I think the problem here is really that creationists are relying on the Bible as scientific fact, and one that does not need 'significant proof' like evolution does...
it's a really screwed up situation that really comes down to how literally (or at all) you believe the Bible.

I have a different take on it. It's kind of difficult to explain, and it's almost 2am here, so maybe I'll take a stab at it some other time. For now, I'll just say that, when people go to a lot of trouble to keep stirring up the same controversy over and over and over again, my opinion is that the content of their argument is way less important than the reasons why they keep presenting it.

We should note that the CS/ID controversies are always started by CS/ID proponents. We should take a good look at the venues they want to insert CS/ID into. We should consider the sources of the CS/ID arguments -- look at the people and organizations pushing the controversy. And we should ask ourselves what it is they are really trying to achieve by their actions, or if you prefer, what is it they could possibly achieve.

It is my opinion that CS/ID is nothing but a tool used in the promotion of a broader public agenda -- one which I hope has little chance of any success.

I tend to think of 'scientific' creationists these days more or less as impatient people, eventually science and reason will provide answers for these questions, and even if it doesn't happen in our lifetimes trusting that eventually it will is a good step back from irrational superstitions.

Darwinism has nothing to do with creative power. It does have everything to do with analysing ALL facts not just choice ones then use of the Bible. That website you linked solely begs the question. Never does it answer anything. All it says it that the Bible is correct because we interpretted correctly and everyone else did not. Yet this is the exact argument for why we should not believe scientists. Because they "interpret" the facts. Now there thermodynamics argument just completely shows a lack of knowledge in the subject of physics. Being a couple years from obtaining a PhD in physics, I will claim that their thoughts on the second law is a joke, because yet again it is not all inclusive. It picks and chooses what facts they wish to use.
Entropy only applies to closed systems. The biosphere is not a closed system. Energy from the sun is continually added to the biosphere, as well as thermal energy from vulcanism.
<snip>Eh... Trotskylvania, note that Hellsoft is not arguing in favour of creationism, but in favour of science. I think you severely missinterpreted what he wrote.

Furthermore, he's right, 's far as entrophy is concerned. What Hellsoft means has nothing to do with 'Entrophy makes complex molecules impossible, therefore there has to be a divine miracle', but everything with 'These idiots have the physics knowledge of four-year olds'.

To wit: The creationist interpretation of entrophy is that nothing complex can develop on its own. The scientific interpretation is - accurately - that every reaction results in increased overall entrophy. I.e. a biochemical reaction results in the production of heat, and - although the resulting molecule is more complex than the original, simpler molecules - overall entrophy increases, as there's now some more infrared radiation bouncing through space, which is about as chaotic as it gets.

This thread has confirmed for me that I really do need to stop reading about Creationalists; they want to believe in it go for it you're no where near my kids.

Its only in the USA that this is an issue at all; you just cannot use scienctific arguments for faith, they are in totally different fields. I believe Creationalism will evolve out of humans eventually, thank God. :)

This thread has confirmed for me that I really do need to stop reading about Creationalists; they want to believe in it go for it you're no where near my kids.

Its only in the USA that this is an issue at all; you just cannot use scienctific arguments for faith, they are in totally different fields. I believe Creationalism will evolve out of humans eventually, thank God. :)
Keep telling yourself that... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/3088444.stm)

Keep telling yourself that... (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/tees/3088444.stm)Not to mention assorted other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_creationism#Education_world-wide) (Wiki, I know, but lots of nifty links to the sources). What people tend to forget is that the US are huge, which isn't quite true for most other countries - of course they're also going to have a fair number of nutjobs. Granted, they do appear to be somewhat more common than elsewhere, but the difference isn't that big.

Not to mention assorted other countries (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_creationism#Education_world-wide) (Wiki, I know, but lots of nifty links to the sources). What people tend to forget is that the US are huge, which isn't quite true for most other countries - of course they're also going to have a fair number of nutjobs. Granted, they do appear to be somewhat more common than elsewhere, but the difference isn't that big.
I do know that I have to explain this over and over in Japan to many Japanese who are just dumbstruck that the country which they view as the fount of most progress, particularly science and technology, has people who seriously are saying that Evolution is false and Creationism should be taught.

I do know that I have to explain this over and over in Japan to many Japanese who are just dumbstruck that the country which they view as the fount of most progress, particularly science and technology, has people who seriously are saying that Evolution is false and Creationism should be taught.

They see us as the fount of progress? They have walking robots for crying out loud...

Yes, but WE have dishwashers and dryers. ;)

Well, a walking robot that does my dishes and dries my clothes is closer to the future that the Tex Avery cartoons promised anyway...

They see us as the fount of progress? They have walking robots for crying out loud...
Yes, but WE have dishwashers and dryers. ;)

Well, a walking robot that does my dishes and dries my clothes is closer to the future that the Tex Avery cartoons promised anyway...
;)

In all seriousness, I think it is because Japanese are generally taught that a lot of modern conveniences that they like were invented in America or by an American. Add in a healthy dose of fascination with the US for various reasons and...

And that explains why I have to explain the creationism debate to a bunch of very confused Japanese.

This is how far ahead the Japanese are compared to us:

They made Godzilla.

They made the anime "X", dealing with the two dragons of the earth and heaven at war for the dominance of the planet.



Years later, maybe even a decade or so after X, we have a movie coming out called Dragon Wars, with basically the same storyline, but of course there's more guns.

They're ahead of us by that much.


We can take comfort, however, in the fact that while after the 80's our fascination had subsided, they are still entranced by the synthesizing keyboard and use it in every situation they possibly can.

2. The second strategy is breath taking in its sheer chutzpah: "Yes, we have lots of scientists supporting Intelligent Design and they're doing lots of clever research, but it all has to be kept secret to stop those nasty Darwinists finding out". In this line of argument, they've awarded an award to an anonymous grad student (http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/312) and they're asserting that 20-30% of research into RNA synthesis is being hushed up because the implications are too controversial.

A group of people who'd love nothing more than to challenge the very foundations of modern biology is claiming to have research they can't release because it would challenge the very foundations of modern biology? That's absolutely brilliant! I wish I'd thought of it.