Evolution or Creationism?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Scholarly Pursuits
Forum Name: Philosophy and Theology
Forum Discription: Topics relating to philosophy
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=15604
Printed Date: 17-Jun-2024 at 21:10
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Evolution or Creationism?
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Subject: Evolution or Creationism?
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 12:31
|
Ok as a student of Archaeology who has studied the deveolpment of Humanity I am always curious as to others peoples beliefs.I think its interesting when Relgion and Science coincide or conflict on a topic and this is prime example. Here also religion conflicts with Archaeology which is obviously my area on interest. Personally I'm for the Theory of Evolution. The evidence to support Darwins ideas is overwhelming. Embryology-the study of Embyros Studies of the embyros of many different creatures including fish, birds and even humans have shown that at the very earliest stages of life they are strikingly similer in anatomy for example may have tails. This would suggest a pattern of evoltuion inherited from a common ancestor. Also the study of the Human Embryo in particular has shown soem patterns of development during Pregnacy that can only have come from evolution from a common ancestor. In its early stages gills appear in the neck ( those lines we have are the remnents of these). Next the the baby grows a tail as I expalined above. The baby will then grow a downy covering of hair which most of the time will disappear before birth. Its like it goes through its own Mini-Evolution. The Fossil records The fossil most commonly used as an example is the limb of the common horse. Horse limbs have been studied closely and can be arranged Chronologically from the earliest horses that were no bigger than a dog to our modern species Equus. We can observe the development of the limb from thin and many-toes to a larger bone and only one toe, the hoof. Only through evolution could this have occurred. The same has been done, in so far as its possible, with the Human Skull and has shown how our brains have grown larger and evolved in complexity as a result over time , the artefacts found during investigations worldwide from the earliest peoples up to the modern age show this to be the case.. The Pendactyl Limb The study of the fore-limb eg arm, fin , wing, paw of many species has shown similarities in the phisiology. Most limbs will have two long bones , 4 digits and a thumb-like feature. This suggests common ancestory and again evoltuion into many different forms. Development and exticntion of species Evolution, by Darwin's theory, is natures way of selcting the strongest individuals of a species to survive and breed. This expalins why many ( not all I stress!) species of animals have died out. I know poaching has much to do with it. But the creatures we see today are the products of this survival of the fittest idea.Stronger species develop and change according to their environments and so they live on and breed and so the species becomes stronger and better equipped to deal with its changing habitat. And it still occurrs today. Its such a slow process that we will likely not see it our lifetime however So what do you think? ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Replies:
Posted By: Zagros
Date Posted: 18-Oct-2006 at 13:08
|
The notion of creationism is an insult to even an idiot's intelligence... No offence intended to anyone who ardently adheres thereto. This is just my opinion. ------------- |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 19-Oct-2006 at 00:46
|
Another thread on this? I struggle to understand why there is a debate in the first place. Are you living in a quantized world? ------------- |
Posted By: QueenCleopatra
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 03:46
|
What do you mean by that? I was just curious about other people's opinions. Isn't that what this forum is for? ------------- Her Royal Highness , lady of the Two Lands, High Priestess of Thebes, Beloved of Isis , Cleopatra , Oueen of the Nile |
Posted By: Vivek Sharma
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 05:27
|
Creationism is a creation of the humans, an attempt to explain those things that fall out of the realm of contemprory knowledge. We are fortunate enough to be living in an age when we do knw what would have happened fairly accurately. The Evolution theory as also the theory of Natural selection has too overwhleming logic for almost every rationale question that can be thrown at it. Untill we are able to come up with a better account of the facts, the theory will hold good. ------------- PATTON NAGAR, Brains win over Brawn |
Posted By: Goban
Date Posted: 20-Oct-2006 at 08:39
I think he meant that there were a few threads about this topic running at the same time a little while ago. It was nothing personal.  ------------- The sharpest spoon in the drawer. |
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 22-Oct-2006 at 16:32
|
if God did create Human race, what was his purpose?(i am not an Athiest)
------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:32
|
I believe that Creationism and Evolution, in a long run, explains the divine work of perfect being (Whether you call it God or Nautral Law). For instance, the word "water" is still water, whether it's spoken in English, Korean, Japanese, Arabic, etc. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi"> 
Join us. |
Posted By: Paul
Date Posted: 01-Jan-2007 at 22:58
Extremely well said, but with me offense intended. You simply can't compare the notion as if they are equal opposites. One is intelligent reason the other hocus pocus for the braindead.
------------- Light blue touch paper and stand well back http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk - http://www.maquahuitl.co.uk http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk - http://www.toltecitztli.co.uk |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 05:14
|
Moving the question forward: If God has not created the world as we know it and the Bible is wrong, does Christianity have a reason of existence? I mean if the basis of Christian Theology is fundamentally wrong, why should anyone believe in Christianity at all?
(apart for the obvious fact that some people need to believe in something bigger than themselves in order not to be crushed by the simple burden of their existence)
In anciant times, God(s) had penty of space. they were responsible for life and death, for rising and setting the Sun, bringing the rain or destroying crops if not properly served etc. Now that we know that God(s) does not do these things any more, and Science is responding to more and more unanswered question is (and is it indeed?) God needed at all or is technology the new God?
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:10
|
God is never needed.
He is sometimes useful, especially to politicians and other power-seekers and fund-raisers. Tp that end, men make God in their own image. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:15
OK....well, who knows my fate once I say this...but as a Christian, I support Creationism. 
------------- |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:20
If you'd add some arguments to you post you'd make it more interesting... Trying to help you, I'd say that there're Christian Theologists (serious academic ones, not the kind supporting Creationism) that support the idea that Science and God go hand in hand and that the Bible was merely speaking allegorically.
------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 06:23
|
Fair enough, I've begun putting together some stuff for you/this topic. Yes there definatly are Christians that believe God used Evolution and things like that, I know some personally, and I enjoy listening to their ideas and arguments, as I do with Evolutionists and the like. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 13:36
|
I am an agnostic but I suspect that the book of Genesis is a sort of metaphor. If you are a very intelligent person, who has a good grasp of evolution and believe that there is some sort of intelligence acting upon the universe, how would you explain it to a bunch of sheep-herdsmen? You would write an epic, easy to remember poem, and phrase complex concepts in simple terms which the herdsmen could understand. Let's take Genesis, for instance, and treat it as a metaphor for the scientific explanation we use today. Please look for the italics as the explanation in modern language. Of course, the interpretation below is my own and it is rather liberal. There’s absolutely no guarantees that it is what the author meant. But is a good guess nonetheless, or so I think. I have a lot more respect for Christians who understand Genesis in these terms, as opposed to those who take it literally. If they do take it literally, it means that they haven’t really evolved much beyond those illiterate sheep-herdsmen for which this book was intended. Genesis 1 1 First God made heaven & earth First the universe and then earth appeared 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was upon the face of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the face of the waters. The primitive earth had no features as we know them today, the atmosphere did not allow light to get through, but life was forming in the oceans. 3 And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. The atmosphere changed enough for light to penetrate to the surface of the earth 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. Light had a positive impact on life, which started to be affected by day and night. An era passed 6 And God said, "Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." The first continent took shape amidst the oceans 7 And God made the firmament and separated the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament. And it was so. The cycle of water started to occur, as the water in the oceans was separated from the water in the atmosphere (clouds) 8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And there was evening and there was morning, a second day. The early earth was an amazing place. Another era went by. 9 And God said, "Let the waters under the heavens be gathered together into one place, and let the dry land appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry land Earth, and the waters that were gathered together he called Seas. And God saw that it was good. The continents and the oceans as we know them took shape. 11 And God said, "Let the earth put forth vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, upon the earth." And it was so. Vegetal life now appeared on dry land and diversified. 12 The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds, and trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. Each vegetal life form had different adaptations for reproduction. 13 And there was evening and there was morning, a third day. Another era passed 14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the firmament of the heavens to separate the day from the night; and let them be for signs and for seasons and for days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth." And it was so. The stars could be seen from Earth and also had a role to play in the ecosystem 16 And God made the two great lights, the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night; he made the stars also. 17 And God set them in the firmament of the heavens to give light upon the earth, 18 to rule over the day and over the night, and to separate the light from the darkness. And God saw that it was good. The cycle of life was determined by the sun and the moon, each with a specific role to play. 19 And there was evening and there was morning, a fourth day. Another age passed. 20 And God said, "Let the waters bring forth swarms of living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the firmament of the heavens." Life diversified in the oceans. The first insects on earth started to fly. 21 So God created the great sea monsters and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarm, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. The first great marine reptiles and dinosaurs appeared. The first birds also started to diversify. 22 And God blessed them, saying, "Be fruitful and multiply and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth." These animals continued to reproduce and diversify. 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. Another age passed 24 And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so. 25 And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. The modern land animals appeared and diversified. 26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Eventually, the human animal appears, endowed with the ability of abstract thought. 27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them. 28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth." The early humans appeared and started to migrate across the surface of the Earth. 29 And God said, "Behold, I have given you every plant yielding seed which is upon the face of all the earth, and every tree with seed in its fruit; you shall have them for food. The basis of their alimentation was vegetal 30 And to every beast of the earth, and to every bird of the air, and to everything that creeps on the earth, everything that has the breath of life, I have given every green plant for food." And it was so. All animals ultimately depend on the plants for energy 31 And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, a sixth day. Another age passed. Now, Genesis 2 is somewhat redundant, as it repeats the explanation for the appearance of the Earth and life, in somewhat different terms, in verses 1-7. Let’s start again at 8. Genesis 2
8 And the LORD God planted a garden in Early man formed somewhere in the East [of 9 And out of the ground the LORD God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food, the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Early man’s native environment was quite rich. Primitive humans reproduced [tree of life] and developed religion.[knowledge of good and evil] 10 A river flowed out of Out of the original homeland, several streams of migration occurred. The first went up the 15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to till it and keep it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, "You may freely eat of every tree of the garden; 17 but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall die." Life was plentiful for ancestral man. However, Death held a special mystery, for which religion provided an explanation and put it into perspective. 18 Then the LORD God said, "It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him." 19 So out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them; and whatever the man called every living creature, that was its name. Complex language also appeared at this time, with humans having the ability to transmit names given to the world around them. 20 The man gave names to all cattle, and to the birds of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for the man there was not found a helper fit for him. Some animals were domesticated. With the appearance of language and animal domestication, social structures emerged, as some people were needed to take upon subordinate positions in society. 21 So the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, and while he slept took one of his ribs and closed up its place with flesh; 22 and the rib which the LORD God had taken from the man he made into a woman and brought her to the man. In the meantime, out of human DNA [a rib], God had created women. 23 Then the man said, "This at last is bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of 24 Therefore a man leaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. Men and women are meant to create strong bonds (marriage), if they procreate. 25 And the man and his wife were both naked, and were not ashamed. At this time, religion had not created the idea that reproduction is sinful. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 14:10
|
Another example would be John 1:1
Now, if we take DNA as "The Word" (which even in modern science it is - CTTAGGTACTGGT... etc), this statement makes a lot more sense. If we say instead: In the beginning there was DNA, and DNA was with God, and DNA was God. Or perhaps: In the beginning there was DNA, and everything which has DNA is a part of God, and DNA is God himself. All of a sudden, we have a very modern statement, which today's science has difficulty refuting. The only debatable point (and what a big point it is!), is whether we can define God as some sort of consciousness residing in the ensemble of DNA in the universe, which is a matter of faith and philosophy. Alternatively, that statement could be interpreted: as humans started to develop a language, the idea of God appeared in their heads. If only most christians would read between the lines, instead of stubbornly (and somewhat stupidly) clinging to a literal interpretation of the Bible, then we'd be much further ahead, wouldn't we?
------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 16:08
But an orthodox (not eastern orthodoxy) christian cannot believe in this. This is a pantheistic belief, since DNA is contained in all living organisms and DNA is God it means that we are all a part of God....very heterodox. "The Word" or Logos "is the underlying order of reality of which ordinary people are only unconsciously aware." Therefore Logos is the natural order of all things, not just genetics as prescribed by God. The Greeks did not try and assign atoms to God, and I don't believe it would be right to assign DNA to God. Although being human he would obviously have to have DNA, just not be contained in everyone elses DNA. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 02-Jan-2007 at 16:42
|
Orthodox christians: who's to say that the current post-chalcedonian version of christianity actually interpreted the various books in the Bible the way they were meant to be interpreted? The version of christianity that we know as orthodox is the result of deliberations at various ecumenical councils (Nicea I & II, Chalcedon). There were a lot of other variants (heresies) which abounded before these councils, some of which (I forget which ones right now), actually believed that God was in some way a part of humans as well. Anyway, the version currently used is the one that allowed for the best collaboration between the church and the state. That does not make it correct. Perhaps the time would be right for another council, which could reconcile christianity with science. We could also look at the various heresies derived from Gnosticism, whoch believed that there is a deeper meaning behind the teachings of Jesus and the prophets, which was not revealed to ordinary converts. Anyway, the point here is not necessarily about what an orthodox christian should believe: it's rather about the possibility of reconciling creationism and evolution. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 02:39
Brilliant analysis, Decebal. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: JanusRook
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 02:50
Oh, sorry, I didn't mean it that way. I meant Orthodoxy, in the sense of what the consensus of Protestant, Catholic and Orthodox christians have in common belief. Pantheism is very unorthodox in Christian teaching, in nearly every denomination. ------------- Economic Communist, Political Progressive, Social Conservative. Unless otherwise noted source is wiki. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 03:44
Ahem, mere deities may be in competition to science, but science is a mere servent to the true God! Seriously, science doesn't answer anything, it only moves the question. Science itself didn't start to seriously evolve until it was in a monotheistic enviroment. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 08:32
Science has no problem at all refuting it. The idea that DNA was present at the birth of the universe - or even at the birth of Earth - is ludicrous. ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 08:59
|
But gcle, in this case, it doesn't have to be the beginning of the universe or even the earth, but simply the beginning of life. The statement is ambigous enough to allow for that. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 12:59
|
While your statement is a very nice thought out extended metaphor, if DNA is "THE WORD" , why is it in fierce competition with ITSELF? In this case, because it all originated as "THE WORD" or God. Are you saying God is engaged at war with Himslef? Or was it all his plan from the beginning?
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 13:48
|
Mysterious are the ways of God! Seriously though, the question of "war" or fierce competition when it comes to DNA is not necessarily incompatible with divinity. It all depends on how we define God, doesn't it? The metaphor which I presented presents one way to define God, which is not necessarily the same as the paternal entity most monotheists have in mind. For human purposes, in relative terms, an intelligent entity based on all the DNA on earth (and in the universe if that is proven to be the case) is ominpotent and omniscient. However, that does not make it absolutely omnipotent and omniscient. God, as defined here, could only function within certain parameters. Evolution (or diversification and expansion of the total DNA) is the way which this entity chose as the most efficient path to dominating the universe.
------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 03-Jan-2007 at 21:03
|
At the root of evolution there is also a held 'belief' that life came from simple self replicating chemicals. Although it hopes to explain the subsequent events it does not satisfactorily deal with the 'origin of life'. ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 06:43
Make that "the beginning of life on earth" and you will be getting closer. I don't however think we know whether the original life forms, even on earth, were DNA-based, of whether that was the result of later evolution. Anyway in John's Gospel, while the 'Word' was present at the beginning, it only 'became flesh' long after humanity was present - 'He became flesh and made His dwelling among us'. While John was obviously trying to gain some Gnostic appeal here, it is evident that by the 'Word' he meant the second person of the Trinity, and was emphasising that that second person was co-eval with the first. And, incidentally, note that the pronoun he uses to refer to the 'Word' is not 'it', but 'he'. ------------- |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 09:06
|
If we start talking about "he" and "it", we should think of what it was originally in Greek. To my knowledge, I don't think that Greek makes such a distinction: it was the translators who decided to pick "he" instead of "it", based on the interpretation you presented.
------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Siege Tower
Date Posted: 04-Jan-2007 at 16:20
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 05-Jan-2007 at 10:41
|
My take is this.
There was nothing and then there was somthing, for this to happen there must have been some "power" which caused our world, the universe and so on to be created. This "power" is the all-mighty, creator of everything and has many names in many languages in many faiths. The problem I have with Darwinists is that they have drifted from Science and into following it as a religion. The way Darwinists get so worked up and frustrated with those that don't "agree" with them, with those that don't follow their views is nothing but dogmatic behaviour. They have become a religion, they have "faith" in Darwin and are not open to anything that tries to proove otherwise. This is against the fundamentals of science, if they were true scientists they would strive to learn more, investigate every avenue and not dismiss anything. Once upon a time some thought the world was square, that the universe revolved around us, we didn't know about electicity and didn't have telecommunications etc etc back then it would seem impossible what we have to today so we shouldn't rule out what we don't understand. What Science claims today can change tomorrow, that's the beauty of science but some Darwinists find this hard to comprehend. The very mention of any kind of "creation" or the possibilty of God get's them all worked up, foaming at the mouth and shouting profanities. According to Islam, basically there was nothing, then from a cloud of dust the Universe was created, Allah created the world in six of the creater's time periods (which could be any time-span). The Islamic viewpoint is not actually different to what Physics teaches today regarding the Big-Bang. What is the Islamic understanding and outlook onto evolution? ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 04:24
Ex Nihilo - something out of nothing - it is only possible through supernatural intervention - that of an Omnipotent God and Creator. |
Posted By: Omar al Hashim
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 04:25
I'm saying science and God are not mutally exclusive. In fact I think they are mutally inclusive, the existance of one implies the existance of the other. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 19:25
|
Agreed. As I have said before, both science and religion are like two different languages... or another good analogy... there's a tale that four blind men went out to observe the elephant. All four reported different observation, since one guy touched the legs and thought elephant was like a thick tree... and another one touching its ears and saying that elephant is like a flat rubber-like animal and so on... ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 19:44
|
A key strategy of the creationists (or the intelligent design movement) is to pursuade there general public that there is a debate within the scientific community between those support the theory of evolution and those that support intelligent design. That is no such debate. The overwhelming majority of scientists support the notion that life has evolved. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 19:47
That however does not exclude the existence, or credibility of the 'Intelligent Design' Movement. |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 20:05
The theory of evolutoin is not based on faith, far from it, it is based on solid scientific evidence and explains much of the diversity and richness of life that we observe today. If you are to accuse science of being dogmatic because it does not take seriously those that defend creationism, you do not know the first thing about scientist. No scientist would waste his time debating on religiousl issues on the existence of supernatural being. Science aims to build models based on experimental and observational evidence, and to use these models to explain or predict the behavior of complex systems. Scientific theories are falsifiable and can be shown to be wrong. Creationism and religion are not falsifiable as they are simply a matter of belief. Creationism or the theory of intelligent design are unscienfitic because they do not meet any of the objectives that science is supposed to follow, they cannot be used to model or predict the complex ecological systems, they merely put all this complexity under the rag by claiming that there is a supreme being that has created it all. This is not science, it is religion. There can be no debate with theologicians, because any debate format would give the false impression that there are two sides to a scienfic disagreement. Creationist would have in effect won their goal when a real scientists agrees to have a debate with them and grant them the propaganda victory that they crave.
How exactly do you investigate the existance of God? And how is such an investigation useful? It is none of a scientists business to undertake such an investigation.
Regardless of Islamic understanding, evolution is a complete scientific theory. Like all scientific theories it is a falsifiable theory, and there is no evidence so far to suggest it is false, but plenty of evidence in support of it. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 20:06
The theory of intelligent design is not a scientific theory, it is simply a matter of belief. No scientist would waste her time with such useless nonsense. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 20:36
|
Bg_Turk
The theory of evolutoin is not based on faith, far from it, it is based on solid scientific evidence and explains much of the diversity and richness of life that we observe today. It's turning into one about faith, exploring or even considering alternate avenues is considered to be a scientific "sin" by some hardcore Darwinists. If you are to accuse science of being dogmatic because it does not take seriously those that defend creationism, you do not know the first thing about scientist.No scientist would waste his time debating on religiousl issues on the existence of supernatural being. And if you think that no scientists investigate or are open to the possibility of the universe being "created" by a "power" then you obviously don't follow science very well. What you are mentioning is "dogmatic". The rejection of ideas primarily because one subjectively "believes" them to be "a waste of time", is nothing but dogmatic unscientific behaviour. Bg_Turk Science aims to build models based on experimental and observational evidence, and to use these models to explain or predict the behavior of complex systems. Scientific theories are falsifiable and can be shown to be wrong. Exactly and this means that what Science says today can be refuted tomorrow. For this reason alone the concept of a creating power cannot be dismissed untill "proven" to not exist. Creationism and religion are not falsifiable as they are simply a matter of belief. Creationism or the theory of intelligent design are unscienfitic because they do not meet any of the objectives that science is supposed to follow, they cannot be used to model or predict the complex ecological systems, they merely put all this complexity under the rag by claiming that there is a supreme being that has created it all. This is not science, it is religion. Your missing the concept. Regarding Islam, Science is not seen as an obstacle or a problem, it is encouraged, aquiring knowledge and progressing in science in emphasised. This is because the human brain cannot comprehend what it does not understand. As Allah created everything in the universe the only way to attain the knowledge to even begin to get close to understanding the beauty and harmony of this is through science. The more scientifically developed, the better we understand how Allah created everything and how everything works and occurs. The enlightenment of the mind brings us closer to the understanding of the creater. There can be no debate with theologicians, because any debate format would give the false impression that there are two sides to a scienfic disagreement. Creationist would have in effect won their goal when a real scientists agrees to have a debate with them and grant them the propaganda victory that they crave. This is paranoia. How exactly do you investigate the existance of God? And how is such an investigation useful? It's like asking 500 hundred years ago, how can we investigate flying into Space? it would have seemed ridiculous to the "science" of the day, however, its not absurd or an impossiblity as science has advanced and we have the means to conduct such research and investigation. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 21:00
No, you are missing the point. What I have been saying all along is that a scientific theory has to be falsifiable. Islam is not falsifiable, neither is creationism, and for that reason they cannot be regarded as scientific theories. You approach science under the assumption that Allah exists, and that science is supposed to describe his world - this to me is an assault on science, it an an attempt to turn science into a theological propaganda tool. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 21:16
|
Why is it an insult on science? Science is always changing, what was an insult to sceience today may be proven tomorrow. I just pointed out that the more knowledge we aquire the closer we will get to understanding into things like how we, the world and universe were created. Depending on your religion, it can be percieved as getting closer to understanding the wonder's of the creating power.
The problem Christian Creationists have is that they believe the world was created in 7 days which causes a conflict with meainstream scientific views. ------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 21:45
Ok, this is not true. Despite popular misconception, there is no evidence (So far, anyway) that proves the evolution. There are some evidences, yes. The textbooks say that dinosaurs evolved slowly, which is proven by the slow changes of fossil. But the question is... where is that evidence. Sure, they brought us two different fossil that looks as if they have changed... but that's really not enough to prove that evolution exist. Highly likely? Perhaps. 100% real? Well, let's just say that there are some doubts. Let me make clear difference between evolution and adaptation. Many people get confuse with these two different terms. Ture, they are quite similar... but one cannot adapt so much that their bodies mutate into something that's compleetely different. If such case is true (I will be stoned for sure by some of you..) then theory of evolution should be classified as faith, for faith is something you believe in that cannot be proven.
Do not underistimate the power of imagination. People long predicted the possibility to go to space, whether scientifically, or by divine means. Koreans in Silla period believed that a pair of rabbits made the rice cake in the moon and by using a special bean (Classic, have we heard a similar tale somewhere else?) that could help people to reach to the moon and get the extra surplus that the rabbits made. Scientifically, the turks hoped to reach the moon-people and open up the new commerical trade route with the moon-people by creating a huge gundpowder cannon with people (usually serfs) inside the cannon. The cannon is fired, hopefully reaching the surface of the moon and opening the diplomnatic relations with the moon-people. It may sound silly and unscientific, but at that time... it was revolutionary idea purely based on science. (Ex. Projectile Motion) ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 21:46
What? Could you elaborate? How is God at war with Himself? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 21:54
No, Siege Tower. Science and religion both can explain everything... but mankind's knowledge are too limited to understand any one of them... Science, indeed, cannot explain everything. Religion cannot explain everything. Could one explain why a five year old kid has to die by cancer when others are still alive at age of 46? That's why religious people as well as scientists should work together to search for the truth. Noticed that many brilliant scientists, that many other people take pride as the people that proved science is superior, have strong faith in religion? Einstein, Galileo, Kelper, and many others that I won't bother to mention. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 06-Jan-2007 at 22:07
Both science and religion are slowly changing, though religion is more conservative compared to science. Please understand that human beings have knowledge too limited to truly understand both science and religion. How could one prove that world was not created in 7 days? How could religion prove that evolution is wrong? You see, the best thing we should be doing is not to point each other that they are wrong, but a sincere will to learn. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the story, Christopher Columbus attends a dinner which a Spanish gentleman is giving in his honor. Columbus asks all the gentlemen in attendance to make an egg stand on end. After all the men have tried and failed, they state that it is impossible. Columbus then places the egg's small end on the table, breaking the shell a bit, so that it can stand upright. Columbus then states that it is "the simplest thing in the world. Anybody can do it, after he has been shown how!" This story may be a derivative of one in which Filippo Brunelleschi, instead of Columbus, makes the proposition. The Brunelleschi story is set before he won the contract to build the dome of the cathedral of Florence. There is a monument to Columbus' egg in Sant Antoni de Portmany. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Sanger, L., Wales, J. (2001). Philosophy. In Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved: http://www.wikipedia.org The point is... stop arguing whether one is right or wrong. Show how! Prove it. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 00:40
 Darwinists such as those u describe actually have an appellation, they are called 'Darwin's rottwielers'. Some factions are so extreme that they will even ridicule fellow scientists(considered heretics) if they propose a different theory 'of' evolution to the savannah ape theory, such as the aquatic ape theory. ------------- |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 01:11
Proposing different theories and otherwise challenging evolution is a natural part of the scientific process. Creationism and natural design, however, are not scientific theories, they are merely the restul of wishful thinking by some religious zealots who wish to abuse science for their own purposes. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 01:25
It is an asault on science because such theories undermine scientific thought. If one can explain the biodversity in the world today by the existence of a supreme being up there that has engineered it all, then one can also explain the lightenings as arrows thrown by Zeus. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 02:13
Not neccesarily - A supreme being of all things would certainly have the power to shape earth's biodiversity. Also, if creationism 'undermines' scientific thought then why are there plausible scientific evidences supporting an intelligent creator and endless that dismantle evolution? I fail to see that if a Supernatural being was real, why they would not have the power to go beyond science and alter or be above its laws. |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 06:49
And a supernatural being such as Zeus would certainly have the power to create lightenings too. Why don't scientists take such scientific theories seriously? ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Bulldog
Date Posted: 07-Jan-2007 at 13:07
|
We tend to dismiss what we don't understand or can't comprehend, however, there are others who don't see imagination and hope as a "crime" and its these people who push technology and science forward.
------------- “What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world remains and is immortal.” Albert Pine |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 03:44
|
The point is not whether some particular kind of evolutionary theory, of which there are many, has been proven. They haven't.
The point is that young-earth creationism (and some evolutionary theories) has been disproven. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 05:28
Prove it. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 11:15
As far as I know, the creationism is yet to be disapproved, against the popular misconception. Many people are thrilled to spread the rumors that science is uncovering the lies of religion, especially the Bible. Many scientists, at first trying to denounce the Bible using scientific researches and lab reports, are converting back to Christianity. If someone wants it, I will give names… I just have a small break in school, so I can’t really type much now… ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 12:02
DNA's of different living organism compete against each other, but they all started as one and evolution differentiated them. ------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 19:59
I am not sure what you are saying here specifically. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 20:03
Got it. Thanks for make it clear... (For me, anyway) ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 23:18
Glad to do so sir 
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2007 at 23:58
|
It is, however, a hopelessly flawed argument that uses extremely
dubious logic that seems unfounded in any scientific or religious
basis. You're approach seems to be: DNA = The Word = God. DNA = Animals. Animals kill each other, therefore God kills himself. If this is not the argument you're making I apologise, but if it is then it's very, very weak. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 00:14
If you are right, then... that's a very silly joke.  ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 04:35
A theory claiming to be scientific can be disproven in two ways. 1) Predictions that are deduced from it fail to come true when tested. 2) No predictions deduced from it can be tested in order to determine if they are untrue. 1) The creationist theory that the world sprang suddenly into existence on January 1 1950 leads to the prediction that there would be no historical or other records of events before then. Obviously we have plenty of such records, so obviously the the theory is disproven under category 1. 2) The failure of the prediction that there would be no historical records antedating 1950 can be explained away by asserting that any such 'records' are actually fakes dreamed up by a bamboozling trickster God. However, in that case no prediction based on the theory can be shown to fail to come true, so the theory is disproven under category 2. Of course that does not disprove the NON-scientific theory that the world was created at the stroke of midnight on 31 December 1949, and if you want to go on arguing that it was, then you can go on doing so for ever, and I won't object as long as you're kept under supervision and kept well away from anything to do with educating children. (You can if you want substitute any other date for 1/1/1950 - my birthday might be good - but it wouldn't change any of the arguments.) ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 05:19
I was about to respond to your post, but then decided to heed your advice about educating small children... Ah, what the hey, I do love small children I shall first address your misconceptions about the nature of 'science'. I will agree, that when predictions fail to come true then you can successfully disprove the current form of any scientific theory. However, your second point is quite frankly ignorant to an extreme degree. You may, sir/madame, have heard of Einstein's theories about the nature of the particle, or any such theory. No-one has successfully proven electrons, gluons, protons, etc exist. The theory of the Big Bang has never been successfully "tested". Have you seen any proof of the big bang? I thought not. Neither has evolution ever been successfully tested. I've never seen a half-monkey, nor a half-dinosaur, nor any of the so-called "missing links". That's an important fact to remember, there are just about an infinite number of missing links. So, if you want to exclude theories who can't be proven then you can be the one to exhume and crucify Einstein, Darwin and Lemaitre. I also find your choice of date quite amusing, especially seeing as 'creationism' outdates any other explanations for the beginning of the universe. Whereas evidence for evolution and the big bang are circumstancial at best, contradictory on average and often in direct contradiction to the law itself, creationism is supported by alot of evidence. The lead scientist on the human genome project converted to christianity after his work was complete, claiming that only intelligent design could possibly result in what he found. He described the human gene as a brilliant work of art by God. He was a strong atheist before he began. I don't ask that creationism be put in science text books, it is religion. What I do ask, is that evolution is removed as it's quite frankly a load of 'hooey'. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 05:19
Of course there are historical records beyond 1950! Or 1950BC for that matter, including your birthday! That is because God DID NOT create the universe on those dates. Say I substitute the date for, let's see, the first day ('yom') of the universe's existence - as created by God, roughly 6-7,000 years ago. Please provide some SOLID -not controversial- evidence of historical records prior to that time in history. That is, not 'carbon-14 dating' or for example. If you insist on providing unstable geological/biological evidence, then so be it....  |
Posted By: Lotus
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 09:22
|
I had to study some biology as part of my science degree, although it was quite a while ago now, the one example I do remember is of the ‘Peppered moth’. The moth was a light brown colour and found over all parts
of northern After the industrial revolution and with the advent of the clean air act, buildings weren’t so covered in soot and started returning back to there original brick colour. The dark version of the peppered moth also disappeared. So according to Darwin’s theory, the black version of the peppered moth was a mutant, that found it was better camouflaged against the soot covered buildings than the lighter coloured version, and so it prospered. So I would be interested to hear a creationist view of how the peppered moth changed its colours. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 09:28
As mentioned before, that's an example of adaptation... not evolution. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 09:38
|
So let me get this straight, knights. You say: please give me evidence that the world is older than 6000 years. But you can only use documentry evidence. Scientific methods are somehow not reliable. Since writing only appeared about 5500 years ago, this is an impossible task. Your task therefore is impossible, since it is not a question of finding evidence that the world is older than 6-7000 years ago, it is a question of finding written evidence from before there was writing. That is complete bulls**t! There are hundreds of different scientific methods used in archeology, geology, biology and astronomy, which show dates earlier than 6-7000 years ago, but none of them are not "controversial" for you. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 09:59
|
You're quite right Decebal, it is "bulls**t. The dating methods are, that is. Contrary to popular belief the most common form of dating, radiocarbon dating, is completely flawed. Carbon 14, used in radiocarbon dating, has a half-life of approximately 5730 years, meaning 1/2 its mass decays in 5730 years. Now, let us take the assumption that the earth is just under 14 billion years old. Even leaving several billion years for carbon-14 to first appear, there would still remain today such a miniscule quantity that it would be deemed fully decayed and would no longer be in any way reliable for dating. The underlying assumptions for the system are not only presumptuous, but also quite wrong. I shall give you a couple of examples to demonstrate my point. A newly formed piece of rock from Mt. St. Helens, about 25 years old, was taken to scientists for carbon dating. The scientists were not informed of the origin of the sample, and concluded that it was 300,000 years old. Carbon dating has also achieved the miracle of finding the longest living creature in the world - a small molusk celebrating its 3 millionth birthday. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 10:03
I would be honoured to give you my view and the facts behind this 'evolutionary evidence'. The Peppered Moth Story Peppered Moths (Biston betularia) is a temperate climate moth, found with two distinct colourations - black (melanistic) and whitish - both are still the exact same species. Prior to the Industrial Revolution in Europe, the trees which Peppered Moths hid on were covered with amounts of lichen of a light colour. The white contingent of the Peppered moth gene pool found it easier to survive because of the camouflage protection the lichen offered. The Melanistic Peppered Moths however struggled to stay hidden and were therefore picked off more easily by predators. The decline in Melanistic Moths increased the gene pool of the white Peppered Moths. As the Industrial Revolution set in, pollution killed the lichen off, revealing the darker bark of the trees. This made camouflage more favourable for the Melanistic Peppered Moths, and in turn, the White Moths were taken by predators reducing the White Moth gene pool to 2% and that of the Melanistic ones to 98%. With the introduction of acts and initiatives regarding pollution control, the lichen began to make a comeback - providing another oppurtunity for the White Peppered Moth gene pool to even out again. This is a prime evidence used by evolutionists to promote natural selection as the mechanism for change in a species, eventually leading to new species (macroevolution). Well they have another thing coming. The Peppered Moth example is a superb example of adaptation within a species. Nothing within the genetic coding has been introduced, only changed in ratio over the entire gene pool. There is no new DNA/genetic coding introduced - and therefore there is no new species, still the exact same Peppered Moths. This in no way whatsoever is evidence for evolution. Furthermore, much controversy has surrounded this topic of late, with fraudulent practice being uncovered in the process of the Peppered Moth saga. Peppered Moths of both colours were captured and either 1) Released nearby lichen/non-lichen covered trees to provide visual evidence or 2) killed and glued to trees! 'Now that's just not cricket'. Not only do they rig evidence so that public don't get the truth, but they forget that Peppered Moths do not tend to roost on tree trunks during full daylight hours (when the photos were shot). Much support even suggests the whole story was faked, but I wouldn't go that far. The Peppered Moth Example is not an evidence for evolution, but for adaptation and intra-specific variation. The two colours acting as an insurance and in order to give the best chance in an environmental amendment. Sounds like an intelligent idea to me. - Knights - |
Posted By: bg_turk
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 10:06
His second point holds. Any acceptable scientific theory has to be falsifiable through testing. Testing can be either observational or experimental. In the case of the big bang most of the evidence is observational - the red shift of receding galaxies, the microwave background, etc.
Einstein's theory is a brilliant masterpiece which has been proven time and time again either through observations, and in some cases even experimentation. Clocks running slower in orbit, light rays bending around the Sun as observed through solar eclipses, particle accelerators, close binary star systems, Mercury's precession, are all consistent and agree to unprecedented accuracy with the predictions of Special and General relativity. Scientists are now looking for gravitational radiation, which was predicted by Einstein long time ago.
Good rhetoric, but with nothing to back it up worthless nonetheless. What evidence exactly is "circumstancial" and "contradictory"? Do you even know what evidence the big bang and evolution are actually based on?
What are your scienfic credentials to label evolution as a load of 'hooey'? This whole debate on evolution reminds me of a court case in the American South, where a student sued his school for teaching that PI=3.14, because according to the Bible it must be equal to 3. He won the case, and was granted the right to learn that PI=3. ------------- http://www.journalof911studies.com - http://www.journalof911studies.com |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 10:21
If I may continue...though Carbon-14 is formed in the Troposphere/Stratosphere (gaseous) by Thermal Neutrons that are absorbed by Nitrogen atoms. After reacting with cosmic rays in the atmosphere Carbon-14 and Hydrogen form as the product. Now this may explain the naturally occuring presence of C-14 in the atmosphere, but what about in geological and biological structures? Carbon-14 decays through beta-decay. This is where an electron is emitted. Carbon-14 would be practically non-existant in any geological formations or structures due purely to that fact that it would have all decayed. No new Carbon-14 can be created within the earth's core or even crust/mantle.etc. because the atmospheric components are not present. If the earth is billions of years old then no Carbon-14 should be found in say Coal, and especially Diamond because of where it is formed - the earth's core. But wait, how can use Carbon-14 dating if there won't [shouldn't] be any Radiocarbon there? If, however, the universe and earth only 6,000 or so years old, then Carbon-14 would still exist in rocks and minerals. Many tests by RATE on coal samples from right around the world have shown firm evidence of the existence of Carbon-14 in all of the samples meaning they couldn't be older than a few thousand years old. Accurate dating estimates the coal to have formed around 5,670 years ago, very close to our estimates of when the Great Flood occured. Tests by RATE were also done on Diamonds and Carbon-14 was present in every single diamond sample. What more could you want. Radiocarbon exists in geological components of our earth - the earth is young. - Knights - |
Posted By: Lotus
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 10:58
|
As mentioned before, that's an example of adaptation... not evolution. Adaptation is another theory proposed by the French botanist Jean-Baptiste. The classic theory of adaptation is of the giraffe – it got its long neck by continually stretching to reach the leaves on trees. The peppered moth has been used as a text book
example to explain evolution by natural selection. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 11:00
Let me first commend you on your brilliant effort at sounding intelligent while uttering only idiocy. A scientific theory does not have to be proven, otherwise science would not advance. How long did it take for Einstein's theory to be proven? Was it proven the second it was proposes? No. Was evidence later produced? Yes. Should it have been rejected until that time? No, it should not. You see? Science will, at times, require a theory to be accepted, as a theory, until such time as it can be proven. I submit to you the example of the spherical shape of the earth. How long was it between someone proposing the Earth was spherical until we could actually prove as much? Thousands of years, depending on who you believe. Even Galileo said it a long time before it could be proven. The kind of proof you proceed to talk about supporting Einstein's theories and the Big Bang theory are of equal, if not lesser, value as that supporting creationism. They are the same kind of "proofs" that successfully established that the earth was the centre of the universe. They all support small facets of the theories, but hardly prove them to be true. It would, indeed, be similar to me saying "The world exists", "the Euphrates river exists", "there is pain in child birth", therefore the bible is entirely 100% true. Just to help you out, this is what you call "circumstancial".
Now that we have learnt the word "circumstancial", we can move on to the word "contradictory", which should be a little easier because it's shorter. Contradictory means that the two statements, which exist in a state of contradiction, cannot both be true. This would include such things as: "At a point in time before time existed, the universe spontaneously came into existence." - The Big Bang theory. The following statements also contradict: "Animals evolve to be more complicated." "New chromosomes cannot be created." Now that we've concluded our lesson for today, we can move on to more sophisticated topics, such as thinking for one's self.
You don't need any credentials beyond basic intelligence to determine this. I'm sorry if I'm implied something with the complicated term "hooey", but that was actually intended as a euphemism for a somewhat less complicated one.
It is horribly like that. Unfortunately the evolutionists won the court case, and now our pies are all messed up. Personally I have no stance on pie, unless it's hot and crispy. I heard a man say this once: "In grammar school they taught us that a frog turning into a prince was a fairy tale. In university they taught the frog turning into the prince was fact." ------------- |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 11:03
In addition, may I point out the flaws in your understanding of 'science'. As an historian you should be aware that all people possess a kind of bias. Every scientist [person] has a goal, beliefs and therefore bias. Science is - or should be - used for a purpose, whether that is providing meaning for life and the universe - which everyone appears to need [and which evolution does not provide] - or to improve practical standards of living [or in the case of military science, killing other people]. These solutions would not be pursued if a desire wasn't there in the scientists to find not just an answer, but a certain answer - the one which they desire or find the most useful. In the area of morality and the meaning of life certain answers are more useful and convenient for certain people, or mankind as a whole. For example, the concept of there being no God not only boosts one's ego, but removes and objective moral standard, freeing you mentally from responsibility - essentially meaning you can do whatever you want. Evolution was a theory designed to validate this belief. Furthermore religious zealotry is not confined to those who believe in a God, and everyone uses science for their own purposes! You sound awfully sure in regard to scientific theories for someone who has demonstrated a failure to understand their [scientific theories] very nature. Firstly, it is the role of a scientific theory to explain 'how' something works, not why. Therefore, your Zeus example would not count as a scientific theory - you have not said how Zeus created the lightning bolts [the integral component of a scientific theory]. Using this logic to discredit the concept of the existence of a deity is about as logical saying "Fire is created by friction [among other things] so therefore Humans cannot create fire". Although, we all know that humans cannot create friction to spark a fire. Similarly, If a diety creates the universe, it makes sense that the scientific laws he/she sets in motion are a tool for his/her purposes. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 11:17
Jean-Batptise Lamarck proposed the theory of 'inheritance of acquired traits' - which was later discredited. This involved the passing on of characteristics which an organism acquired during its life. For example if a rhino has its horn removed during its life, Lamarck proposed that the genetic information would be hereditary and the offspring would have a chance of being born without horns. This was scientifcally disproven through bio-genetic law and logic. Your 'classic' example of adaptation is rather similar to that of Lamarck's discredited theory - Giraffes extend their necks ever so slightly in their life and therefore pass the trait of a longer neck on to offspring, then over generations the necks extend. Adaptation is intra-specific only. It allows an organism to survive better, be the 'fittest' to put it ironically. Natural Selection does not create new information, it just changes the gene pool ratio within a species causing a loss of information in some cases (for example:50% White Persian Cats and 50% Red Persian Cats. The owner decides to kill off the Red coloured Persians and does this through only selecting the White ones to breed - Natural Selection. The White Persians are the fittest because their owners wants to keep them alive and going, while Natural Selection in the form of the owner roots out the Black Persians. Eventually, because the Whites are the 'fittest' to survive they gain a 100% control over the gene pool of the cats. No new information is created through this process of natural selection, but genetic information is lost!) - Knights - |
Posted By: Lotus
Date Posted: 09-Jan-2007 at 11:18
|
Hello Knights Bloomin eck, looks like I’m going to have to dig around in the attic and find my old Biology text books. Your theory doesn’t sound outrageous, but then its been ages since I studied Biology. Eddited to say, I was responding to your previous post |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:02
|
Is there anyone here who believes the world is 6000 yrs old? ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:06
Lol, that's highly unlikely... but with our limited knowledge, who knows? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:07
No, it's 6023 years, 2 months and 7 days old. Give or take a couple of hours. ------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:10
I surely hope not! If the world is only 6000 years old how do people explain all the fossils of dinosaurs? of wooly mammoths? of sabre-toothed tigers? of...you get the point! ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:12
I don't mean to be pick, but the precise date is not as important as the fact that I believe in a young earth - one that is fewer than 10,000 years. Many estimates as to how long 'creation' took place, but no 100% solid ones have been made. So yes, I believe the world could be 6,000 years - give or take a couple of thousand. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:18
I can explain the fossils perfectly if the earth is only 6,00 years or so old - they are under 6000 years old! As I have earlier stated dating methods such as radiocarbon are flawed. For all I know the dinosaurs were present at creation and lived alongside man on the early earth. The Great Flood is my most probable theory to explain their disappearance, as much fossil evidence has pointed at the Flood as being 1) Catastrophic/Worldwide 2) Rapid and Sudden explaining the 'in-motion' burials of many creatures 3) Amazing techtonic and geological activity explaining the formation of coal and oil, and continental drift...and many others. It would be perfectly plausible for dinosaurs to have lived alongside Adam and Eve in the Garden, and have died out predominantly in the Flood. Plus, if there was such a monumental asteroid that hit the earth causing a mass extinction of ONLY dinosaurs and pterasaurs, why weren't birds or mammals affected? |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:19
Or the legendry squirrel seen in Ice Age. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:20
|
I especially love how scientists struggle to explain how a human footprint could be found fossilised inside a dinosaur one.
------------- |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:29
And when was that found? ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:29
Huh? How does that work? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Adalwolf
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:32
Hey, if the world is only 6000 years old, and the Christian God created it, why have there been so many other religions? How in the world have Hinduism and Buddism, animism, and Paganism all formed in a mere 6000 years? Why is christianity only about 2000 years ago, but God created man 6000 years ago and spoke to adam and eve? Also, how do you explain all the different languages of the world. Languages take thousands of years to evolve, and there are thousands upon thousands of languages in the world. Many are tribal, and are sadly, dying out today, but they still exist or existed. How do you explain that time frame? ------------- Concrete is heavy; iron is hard--but the grass will prevail. Edward Abbey |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:35
That's exactly what the scientists said. This footprint was found fossilised in the same limestone as a dinosaur footprint on the Ryals Track in the 1930's. At first it was believed to be an improperly formed fossil, but when the rock was examined more closely it was demonstrated that the footprint was not fully excavated. When this was corrected it was shown that there were indeed two footprints in the stone, one human and one dinosaur. The same thing has also been found with the footprint of a cat, of the same evolutionary level as modern house cats. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:39
Mein Gott, so the cavemen and dinosaurs were at war? Lol. Wow, that's something I never heard before. Good for you to mention it, Zaitsev. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:40
Firstly may I point out that you obviously aren't very well educated about the nature of christianity. Christianity originated as JUDAISM. Christianity explains other religions with free choice, how does evolution explain them? Secondly, what evidence do you have that suggests how long languages take to 'evolve'? Klingon certainly didn't take long. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:41
Oh by the way, Bible does not say that the world is 6000 years old. It's a religious man's conclusion, which may be inaccurate. As well, there's no evidence (That I know of, anyway) that Christianity is only about 2000 years old. That, from my point of view, is a popular misconception. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:44
Evolution states that humans and dinosaurs never co-existed. So no evidence of them co-existing should be found if evolution was true. But how do you explain the footprints of humans and dinosaurs in the same track/trail from the exact same period of time...? The Taylor Trail, McFall Trail, Ryal's Track, Morris Track, Burdick Track, New Mexico Track, Turnage Pattern Track and more are examples of human-dinosaur co-existence, just as the Bible teaches. Furthermore, Large Mammal tracks have been found in the same location/river bed as dinosaurs (such as the 'Large Cat Track'), having been fossilised at the same time in history - further proof of mammalian/human - dinosaur co-existence. Evolutionists have failed to explain this flawed part of their theory. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:56
Regarding the Ryal's Track, evolutionists went a step further to try and prove they were never co-existant by claiming the footprints were intentionally carved. This was promptly de-funct. The assumption has been disproved by cross-sectioning. Carving would randomly cut across the internal rock structures. However, if those structures follow the contours of the impression, the carving theory would be falsified. Internal structures dramatically conform to the shape of both the heel impression and the great toe impression, demonstrating that this is an original impression in limestone well known for dinosaur prints. The Human and dinosaur prints were natural, not intentional carvings. |
Posted By: malizai_
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 00:58
|
Right! does anyone have any pics of these specimens. I would appreciate it if anyone can provide a link, so we can all see what they look like. ------------- |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 01:02
Furthermore, it may be possible that the Bible simply did not mention the existence of dinosaurs... but that does not mean that the Bible do not acknowledge the existence of dinosaurs. For instance, just because my physics dictionary does not have anything about Klein's Space or Sea of Dirac does not mean that the theory does not exist. Right? ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 01:07
Sure thing  Taylor Trail: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-3b-bashed.jpg">  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-all-14.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-all-14-water.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-stan-taylor.jpg"> McFall Trail: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-mcfall-all-15-tracks.jpg">  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-mcfall-4.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/utp-mcfall-4-both.jpg"> Ryal's Track: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-drugged-foot.jpg">  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-track.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/ryals-overview.jpg"> Morris Track: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/morris-track.jpg">  Burdick Track  New Mexico track: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/new-mexico-problematica-patton.jpg">  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/new-mexico-problematica-close-up.jpg"> Turnage-Patton Trail: http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail-9.jpg">  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail-2.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail-14.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail-4.jpg">  http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail-13.jpg"> http://www.bible.ca/tracks/turnage-patton-trail-7.jpg"> - Knights - http://www.bible.ca/tracks/burdick-track.htm">   (Burdick Track Again) |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 01:10
|
Salute to the brave cavemen who defeated the invincible dinosaurs with clubs. Men, we owe you so much.
------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: pekau
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 01:16
Hate to break this to you, knight... but we have good enough technology to actually fake it and archeologists would debate for weeks before they find that it was a prank. I recall a huge international scandal…. Crap, I don’t remember. I’ll get back to you when I find the reference. ------------- http://swagbucks.com/refer/Malachi">
Join us. |
Posted By: Yiannis
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 03:20
|
Some carbon-14 dating would solve the "mystery" for good. These "footprints" are as true as the belief that the moon is made of cheese. There's no credoble scientist that has ever endorsed to them. If there's a scientific article that attempts to seriously prove these "fossils" (some look like Donald Duck's footprints) right then we have a topic for discussion.
I suppose you people believe the Bigfoot exists as well, right? ------------- The basis of a democratic state is liberty. Aristotle, Politics Those that can give up essential liberty to obtain a temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin |
Posted By: Praetor
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 03:34
|
Perhaps if you had read even slightly further up this same page, you would have found that carbon dating is about as accurate as your wild claims as to its uses. You see, carbon dating could not even be used to dertemine whether these are genuine, as it can only date the rocks they would supposedly be carved out of. That fact that dinosaur footprints, almost all dinosaur footprints, look like "donald duck's footprints" should make them even more credible. Are you not the one believing dinosaurs turned into birds? I find it interesting that you require an article to convince you. The rocks, removed from the strata at the correct point, correctly dated, properly excavated contain all the evidence is required, you just need to stop ignoring it. On a separate note, isn't bigfoot one of those convenient missing link you've never been able to find? ------------- |
Posted By: gcle2003
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 05:10
ANY such theory? As far as I know Einstein didn't have any particular theories about particles. Can you tlel me what they were?
Of course not. That was the whole point of my post. You can't prove scientific theories, you can only disprove them. More puristically, you can only rank them in the degree to which their predictions satisfy observations.
Yes it has. Inter alia, the theory leads to predictions about the nature of background radiation in the universe. Those predictions have been tested and shown to be true. That of course does NOT PROVE that the theory is correct. However, it has been successfully tested and NOT DISPROVEN.
It has been many times. It is actually SEEN to happen in species with very fast generational cycles, and even in butterflies. Of course this could all be part of God's trickery, so the fact that we SEE it happening doesn't actually prove it is happening. 'Evolution' is in fact NOT a theory, but an OBSERVATION. It is what we see happening all around us. We see it in the history of the flu virus, and in the growth of penicillin-resistant bacteria. When cells divide, or animals have children, or plants produce seed, the new generation is never the same as the old. That is ALL that evolution is: the recognition that things change. Now there are many THEORIES to explain evolution, most of them now debunked. The one that most enables us to make successful predictions about experiments is the one that relies on gene structure and DNA/RNA replication. If you can come up with a better one that would enable us, say, to successfully produce disease-resistant livestock, then fine. Praying doesn't work.
Sure. So what? But every single fossil ever found and every single living organism is a link in the evolutionary chain. As you say there is an effectively infinite number of them - do you expect to fine them all? I don't even know all the links in the evolutionary change between my ancestors in 1066 and now - does that mean I should doubt that I had any? How you can use the fact that my great-great-great-great-grandfathers are 'missing' to argue that the fact of evolution is an illusion is way beyond me.
But I don't. I never said so. In fact I went to considerable lengths to say exactly the opposite. I want to exclude theories that cannot, in any circumstances, produce testable predictions. That of course currently means excluding 'string theory' as a scientific theory, but at least the string theorists are working on ways to produce testable predictions, though they haven't managed to do so yet (as far as I know).
What's wrong with circumstantial evidence? It's the most reliable kind, which is why it is given preferential treatment in court. As to the evidence supporting creationism, give some. That some people believe in it, scientists or not, isn't evidence for it.
Nonsense. Again, evolution is an observed fact. The fossilised animals we discover are generally different from the ones we know now. Today's flu viruses are different from last year's. TB bacteria are now largely antibiotic resistant - they weren't before. Things evolve. We see them evolve. We can even control that evolution, as when we breed dogs or cattle. Evolution is simply a fact. ------------- |
Posted By: Knights
Date Posted: 10-Jan-2007 at 07:00
Definition of 'Fact':An indisputable truth. You claim that evolution is an observed fact. You cannot observe something and claim it as fact, this is a presupposition. Plus, evolution is a theory, one of faith. The reason that fossilised animals are different from the ones we know today is because 1) They went extinct or 2) They are a different species. By different species I do not mean further evolved, because I have already stated that new genetic information cannot be created from nothing. Kind of like the Big Bang - creation from nothing - it doesn't make logical sense. The Flu and Tuberculosis viruses/bacteria may have changed, but only intra-specificaly. Natural Selection. They have adapted by changing the gene pool ratio to a higher percentage of resistant ones (the 'fittest'), through rooting out the unresistant (not the 'fittest'). "Things evolve.We see them evolve." Evolution means Change, yes we see 'things' change all the time, but do we see the creation of new species. Have you seen a new species created from another? No. Lastly, thankyou for providing another wonderful example of micro(intra-specific)-'evolution', or more appropriately, adaption within a species due to Natural Selection. I am talking about your example of cattle and dog breeding being evidence for evolutionary change and how we can control it. Well, dog-breeding to begin - have you ever heard of a different/new species having been produced due to dog-breeding, or for any other type of controlled/selective breeding (cats, cattle.etc)? The whole concept and practice of controlled breeding, like with dogs, is all within a species. It is just a reshuffling of genetic information, and taking advantage of different phenotypes to produce a different kind of the exact same species - a subspecies, or in domestic terms, a breed. As I have briefly shown earlier, this time of controlled change does not create new DNA, but rather causes a reshuffle or even loss of information. Here is a simple example: 'A breeder of cats has 4 Gingers and 4 Tabbies. His preference is Ginger, and therefore aims to root out the Tabby gene in his cats over a few generations. After the first breeding he ends up with - rather than 50:50 - a 75:25 Ginger:Tabby ratio. The Tabby gene pool is decreasing, while that of the Ginger is increasing due to Natural - or in this case artificial/controlled - selection. After the second round of breeding he has a 100:0 ratio in favour of the Gingers and is content'. What have we learned? The Tabby gene has been lost, the genetic coding for 'Tabby' Phenotype was LOST. No new information was created or gained. Macro (or interspecific) Evolution has not occured. - Knights - |