The Florida department of education heard arguments from evolution supporters and opponents in Orlando on Monday in the final public hearing before next week’s panel vote on the state's new science standards.
The school board is considering whether to mandate the word "evolution" into the state science curriculum for the first time. Currently, "biological changes over time" is used in science classes.
If the panel votes in favor of the new science standards, schools would not only be required to teach evolution by name but also more in-depth to students. The State Board of Education is set to vote on the revised science standards on Feb. 19.
More than 100 people weighed in at the Orlando meeting. The majority in attendance spoke against the teaching of evolution as a fact and wanted evolution taught alongside alternative theories such as intelligent design or creationism.
"No one can say with certainty that evolution is a fact," said Lee Hyatt, a 20-year-old college student from Leesburg, reported The Associated Press.
"To be scientifically proven, it has to be observable and no one was around 6,000 years ago. We want students exposed to all theories so they can become critical thinkers."
Other critics worried that the proposed standards requiring the study of evolution would leave little room for academic freedom.
"The standards deny academic freedom to students and teachers," said Patricia Weeks, chairman of the Baker County School Board, one of nine school boards in North Florida to pass resolutions against the proposed standards.
Those who spoke in favor of the new standards said the teaching of evolution was needed in light of poor test scores and would help Florida compete academically with other states.
Opponents, however, noted that Darwin's theories are already taught under the current curriculum.
"There is nothing about this language that is going to make Florida smarter or make kids have better education," said John Stemberger of the Florida Family Policy Council, according to WESH-TV.
A group of parents and pastors held a news conference before the meeting expressing their disappointment that no commissioners from The State Board of Education would be in attendance, reported the Orlando Sentinel.
"All I want to do is have my voice heard and before the seven people who will make the decision," said Kim Kendall.
The meeting in Orlando was similar to those held across the state in recent weeks in Jacksonville, Miramar and Fort Lauderdale.
In addition to comments made at the public hearings, the state board is also expected to consider views reflected in over 10,000 online comments on its website.
RSS
Nice comments. I recommend Lee Strobels Book called "A Case for a Creator" in which he interviews several serious and well known scientists. Some of them predicting that in 20 years we will look back asking ourselves how on earth we could ever belief in things like evolution.
Easy to read by with clear facts from serious scientists who answer hard questions on evolution.
By the way some of them are top of the rank scientists, who also appear on the list I mentioned recently. Scientist question evolution.
Get this book and find out out that science and God fit perfectly together and there is stil no room for evolution.
Chris,
“Sure molecules work according to set principles, but they do not work according to set principles that would make inorganic molecules randomly form into organic molecules.”
Does the energy that results in the stars fusion of atoms and molecules occur purely randomly, OR, is the result of fundamental forces? Right, it’s not random, it’s from fundamental forces. We see molecules that work together under gravity to cause stars to form, and we see the same with regular matter in its formation with other such forces, why can’t certain molecules under such forces come to form replicating matter that uses this given off energy from other matter (stars)?
“The bottom line is that the necessary building blocks, such as amino acids, proteins, RNA would be extremely difficult to achieve randomly”
Well there is random nothing about it when they act according to their fundamental forces, for this illustration molecules have to work in a certain manner to result in regular matter, other wise they wouldn’t exist to begin with. Moving up in complextiy as in forming chain amino acids, RNA and protiens are also depedant on these forces and dont operate in a pureply randomize fashion. True we haven't cultured organic systems, but Venter and his team are very close at creating an entirely new species of synthetic bacteria from scratch. Perhaps in a year it will be done. But I digress, they clearly do not work in a 'purely random fashion', they work according to these fundamental forces.
“Dawkins admits this, I believe in his "God Delusion" book, he takes the examples of chimpanzees typing Shakespear by randomly bashing at a computer”
I
’ve read his biology books (including this one) many times, and this illustration never occurs in the GD, but I get your point. However a ‘monkey typing randomly on a keyboard’ isn’t analogous as this would be occurring purely at RANDOM, while molecules don’t function in this manner and instead operate in accordance to those forces mentioned.
“What he doesn't understand is logic and math, it does not matter how long or how many monkeys, they would never produce shakespear.”
Given enough time and chances all probable outcomes become effectively = ‘1’. IE, if you could play the largest lottery imaginable, with infinite, or even enough time and chances you’re guaranteed to win (= 1) at least once despite the overwhelming odds that you’ll lose, and keep in mind a lottery IS totally random, while molecules and how they react isn’t.
That said, a monkey randomly hitting keys is as equally as likely to hit ‘Shakespeare’ as he is to hit any other equally probable string of consecutive comparable letters. Comparable by length of course. Furthermore, when multiple chances are occurring in parallel (as symbolized by many multiple of monkies randomly typing) their collective likely hood of hitting any string of letters (including Shakespeare) rises.
Star, cite a link and don't spam this is horrid, besides I'd already addressed some of these on the Appolgetics page.
"According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9."
This calculation is wrong b/c poplations don't just grow exponetionally, they require resources to grow and thus are limited by said resources available, hence the term 'carrying capacity'. This is why even with modern H. Sapiens appearing about 190,000 years ago the population isn't that high, it all comes down ot RESOURCES at give time period to support a popluation. A population can bang away and try to reproduce all it wants, but if their aren't enough resources for the next generation it doesn't matter.
Evolutionists
I just submitted two posts. My first post, Population Growth, has 3 parts and the second one, Anomalies in Radiometric Dating, has 7 parts.
Evolutionists
Part 1
Re: The current population of the earth is approximately 6.8 billion people. Did the current population come about from Evolution or, as the Word of God says, from the Earth being repopulated by just 6 people (Noah's 3 sons and their respective wives) after the worldwide flood that occured 1656 years after the fall of Adam?
This is something that we can determine mathematically.
Data Sources:
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/human_pop/human_pop.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_population
The Population Growth Formula at time t for a length of time is:
P(t) = Po e^rt
where
P(t) = Population at time t
Po = Initial population
r = Average rate of population growth per year
t = Time
According to my sources the current world population growth is 1.3%.
In 1963, it was 2.2%.
Obviously, the world population growth is not constant. It can vary greatly for a number of reasons. Some of the reasons would be famine, war, diseases, natural disasters, and etc..
Man has been keeping records of the world population since 1750. Here is the data:
1750 : 791,000,000
1800: 978,000,000
1850: 1,262,000,000
1900: 1,650,000,000
1950: 2,521,000,000
1999: 5,978,000,000
2008: 6,800,000,000
Let's compute the average annual growth rate, r, by solving for r in the Population Growth Formula, P(t) = Po e^rt.
P(t)/Po = e^rt
taking the natural log of each side and dividing by t,we have
r = ln[P(t)/Po]/t
I computed the average annual rate of growth, r, in terms of percentages for each of the following time periods:
1750 - 1800: 0.42%
1800 - 1850: 0.51%
1850 - 1900: 0.54%
1900 - 1950: 0.8%
1950 - 1999: 1.76%
1999 - 2008: 1.43% (quite close to the current 1.3%)
We can see that it is not constant and, of course, unpredictable. So, I calculated the average annual rate of growth from 1750 to 2008 and found it to be 0.83%.
1750 - 2008: 0.83%
Evolutionists
Part 2
Now, Agentorange has previously said to me ".... cosomology, astronomy, geology kill any notion of a 6000 year old universe/earth and biology and genetics kills the idea of 8 people repopulating the earth only 4000 years ago..."
Let's see if that is true.
Recall,
P(t) = Po e^rt
From the Biblical record, I have determined that the amount of time that transpired from the fall of Adam to the time of the flood was 1656 years.
Even though there were 8 people saved during the world wide flood only 6 were used in repopulating the Earth. The Biblical record does not mention that Noah and his wife had any children after the flood. Thus, we can conclude that the Earth was repopulated by Noah's three sons and their respective wives.
We really don't know exactly how much time has transpired since the fall of Adam. However, we, YEC, believe that it has been approximately 6000 years.
Most likely the average annual growth rate probably has changed since the flood until present time. So, to account for wars, diseases, famine, natural disasters, ethnic cleansing, etc let us assume that the the average rate is 60% of the 0.83% rate from 1750 to 2008.
From this information
P(t) - Population at 6000 yrs or 2008 AD
Po = 6
r = 60% of 0.83% = 0.6 x 0.0083 = .00498
t = 6000 - 1656 = 4344 yrs
let us now calculate what the world population would be in year 6000 from the time of the flood.
P(t) = Po e^rt
P(6000) = 6 e^(0.00498)(4344) = 6 e^21.63 = (6)(2476222375) = 14,857,334,250
We see that the population grew from 6 people to approximately 14.8 billion people.
Now, this number is almost twice as much than what we have today, 6.8 billion. The guess I made as to what the average annual growth rate was was a little too high.
So, mathematically, after the flood, it is possible to replenish the Earth with only 6 people after the world wide flood.
Evolutionists
Part 3
Let's see what the Earth's population would be today if Evolution was correct.
There is differences of opinion as to when the first humans appeared. I have heard millions of years, 200,000 years, 190,000, 180,000, and 160,000 years.
Let's just pick the 190,000 years.
Let us assume that through macro evolution only 2 humans appeared, one male and one female.
Because these two humans didn't have the technological advances that Noah's three sons had and they had to develop their language skills, technology skills, etc. from scratch, let us say that their average population growth from the time of their appearance until now was 0.05% instead of the 0.498% that was used for Noah's sons.
The value of the variables are as follows:
P(t) = Population after 190,000 yrs.
Po = 2
r = 0.05% = 0.0005
t = 190,000
Substituting these values into the equation, we have
P(2008 AD) = 2 e^(0.0005)(190000) = 2 e^95 = 2 (1.81 x 10^41) = 3.62 x 10^41.
According to evolution, the total world population today should be 3.62 x 10^41. But the world population is only approximately 6.8 x 10^9.
Conclusion: The Biblical account of the history of man is true. Evolution's account is false.
Evolutionists
Part 1
Re: Radiometric dating of the earth and fossils: Are they trustworthy?
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_earth:
Modern geologists consider the age of the Earth to be around 4.54 billion years.
Can we be so sure?
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/creation_truths/evo_radiodating2.html
Anomalies of Radiometric Dating
Logic and science dictates that if something which is assumed to have a uniform rate is shown in a single example to not be uniform, the theory must be abandoned as unreliable.
Creation scientists as well as secular scientists have found that it is entirely possible for the uniform rates of radiometric dating to be very easily changed through enviromental conditions. (Remember, I mentioned to you that my Nuclear Physics Professor Dr. Spangler and a Nuclear Chemist Dr. Anderson published a paper in 1974 showing that the radioactive decay constants were not constant when radioactive substance were placed in a charged field? Others have found that not only charged fields will affect the decay rate but also magnetic fields, pressure, cosmic radiation, and when a radioactive substance is near another radioactive substance.)
Here are 19 specific examples of the unreliabilty of the radioactive dating methods:
1. Rock from a dactite lava dome at Mount St. Helens that was formed in 1986 during the eruption there was dated (using the Potassium-Argon [K-Ar] method) at 0.35 ±0.05 million years. (S.A. Austin, "Excess Argon within Mineral Concentrates from the New Dactite Lava Dome at Mount St. Helens Volcano," CEN Technical Journal, 10(3):335-343, 1986)
2. A British Engineer, Sidney P. Clementson, studied a variety of modern volcanic rock. Knowing their ages as 200-300 years old, he carefully compared them to Soviet uranium tests of the same volcanic rocks. What he found was surprising. In every instance the dates were found to be hugely incorrect with a 14 billion year (the dates varied from 50 million years to 14.5 billion) discrepancy. ("Critical Examination of Radioactive Dating of Rocks," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1970.)
Evolutionists
Part 2
3. Five andesite lava flows from Mt. Ngauuhoe in New Zealand. They were Potassium-Argon (K-Ar) dated from <0.27 to 3.5 million years. The only problem was that one was laid down 1949, three were laid down 1954 and one in 1975. (A.A. Snelling, "The Cause Of Anomalous Potassium-Argon ‘Ages’ for recent andesite flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Potassium-Argon ‘Dating’" Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on Creationism, Creation Science Fellowship, Pittsburgh, ed. E. Walsh, 1998, pg. 503-525.)
4. A single uranium deposit in the Colorado Caribou Mine had a radiometric error spread of 700 million years. (G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
5. Swedish kolm from Scandinavia was (using the uranium method) dated with an error spread of 420 million years. (G.A. Kerkut Implications of Evolution, pp. 139-140.)
6. Granite from the Black Hills gave strontium/rubidium and various lead system dates varying from 1.16 to 2.55 billion years. (L. Ferrell, "Dating Methods", Evolution Disproved, 2001)
Evolutionists
Part 3
7. In 1800-1801, lava flows off the coast of Hawaii near Hualalei formed volcanic rock. It was dated using K-Ar (Potassium-Argon). The K-Ar dating gave dates ranging from 160 million to 2.96 billion years. (Journal of Geophysical Research, July 15, 1968; Science, October 11, 1968)
8. Doctor Read, in a presentation before a special meeting of the California State Board of Education, presented his research into the radiometric dating of lunar (moon) rocks. Many lunar samples were brought back from the missions and carefully dated usingthorium dating, uranium dating, potassium-argon dating, and agglutinate dating. Yet the dates vary from 2 million to 28 billion. ("Proceedings of the Second, Third and Fourth Lunar Conferences," Earth and Planetary Science Letters, Volumes 14 and 17)
9. Freshly-killed seals have been dated at 1,300 years. Seals which have been dead for 30 years were dated (using the carbon-14 method) at 4,600 years. (W. Dort, "Mummified Seals of Southern Victoria Land," in Antarctic Journal of the U.S., June 1971, p. 210.)
10. Oxford Castle in England was built 725 years ago, and yet its mortar has been radiocarbon dated at 7,370 years old. (E.A. Von Fange, "Time Upside Down," quoted in Creation Research Society Quarterly, November, 1974, p. 18.)
Evolutionists
Part 4
11. Scientists dated the shells of living mollusks and it was determined through radiocarbon dating that these <I>living</I> mollusks had "died" about 2,300 years before. (M. Keith and G. Anderson, "Radiocarbon Dating: Fictitious Results with Mollusk Shells," in Science, 141, 1963, p. 634.)
12. Wood only a few days cut out of living, growing trees was dated, using radiocarbon, to have existed for 10,000 years. (B. Huber, "Recording Gaseous Exchange Under Field Conditions," in Physiology of Forest Trees, ed. by K.V. Thimann, 1958.)
Evolutionists
Part 5
13. Here is a quote which further demonstrates the accuracy problems of radiometric dating, and the carbon-14 method in particular:
"Hair from the Chekurovka mammoth that was found in the Lena River delta region of Russia has a radiocarbon age of 26,000 [years], while the radiocarbon age of peat only eighteen inches above the carcass is 5,610. At normal [present] growth rates, between 500-2,000 solar years would be required for the development of an eighteen inch peat layer.
"Muscle tissue from beneath the scalp of a mummified musk ox found in frozen muck at Fairbanks Creek, Alaska, has a radiocarbon age of 24,000, while the radiocarbon age of hair from a hind limb of the carcass is 17,200. A life span exceeding 7,000 years for a specimen of this species is doubtful.
"In a gravel deposit at the Union Pacific Mammoth Site near Rawlins, Wyoming, a mammoth skeleton was found together with artifacts that indicate the animal was killed by man. Radiocarbon dating of ivory from the center of the tusks establishes the kill date at approximately 11,300 radiocarbon years ago. Wood fragments from the gravel in which the remains were buried have a radiocarbon age of approximately 5,000 years. The bones would not have survived 6,000 solar years of exposure, nor could they be expected to remain in an articulate relationship during erosion and reburial by natural processes.
"A mastodon skeleton found at Ferguson Farm near Tupperville, Ontario, provided a radiocarbon age of 8,900 for the collagen fraction of bones and a radiocarbon age of 6,200 for high organic-content mud from within the skull cavities. It is unlikely that this skeleton could have survived exposure for 2,700 solar years before emplacement in peat." --Robert H. Brown, "Radiocarbon Age Measurements Re-examined," in Review and Herald, October 28, 1971, pp. 7-8.
Evolutionists
Part 6
14. Basalt from Mt. Etna, in Sicily (122 BC) was tested using the K-Ar method and found to be 250,000 years old. (G.B. Dalyrmple, Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55; also see Impact, #307, Jan. 1999)
15. "Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old." (Science, Vol. 224, 1984, pg. 58)
16. "One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the 'wood immediately around the carcass' was 9-10,000." (T.L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. printing office, 1975) pg. 30)
17. "The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY." (H.E. Anthony, "Natures Deep Freeze," Natural History, Sept. 1949, pg. 300)
18. "The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 ±670 and 16,150 ±230 years respectively." (R.M. Thorson and R.D. Guthrie, "Stratigraphy of the Colorado Creek Mammoth Locality, Alaska," Quaternary Research, Vol. 37, No 2, March 1992, pg. 214-228)
19. "In the last two years an absolute date has been obtained for (the Ngandong beds, above the Trinil beds), and it has the very interesting value of 300,000 years plus or minus 300,000 years." (J.B. Birdsell, Human Evoluion, 1975, pg. 295)
Evolutionists
Part 7
Conclusion:
Every one of these anomalies are on the dating of objects of known age. Why then should we trust radiometric dating to be accurate about objects and rocks for which we do not know the ages for?
A single "anomaly" in radiometric dating would invalidate it as being reasonable for use in determining ages. Yet here we have 19. This indicates that radiometric dating is totally useless for age determining.
Danny,
Give it a rest, I think Slacker explained it well enough.
Agentorange,
"This is why the probabiltiy you used doesn't quite work, as each 'try' wouldn't be to assemble the first molecule in the nucleotide chain, but it would be post amino acid at least and the 'try' thereafter, but I am not a astrobiologist and don't work in aiobgensis."
Sure molecules work according to set principles, but they do not work according to set principles that would make inorganic molecules randomly form into organic molecules. (As far as we have been able to see) The bottom line is that the necessary building blocks, such as amino acids, proteins, RNA would be extremely difficult to achieve randomly (indeed we have a very difficult time trying to force it in delicate labratory situations, and it is only after using pre-organic material) The probability is for all intents and purposes zero. Dawkins admits this, I believe in his "God Delusion" book, he takes the examples of chimpanzees typing Shakespear by randomly bashing at a computer (which is what the probability for random life is equated to, and is also consequently mathematically zero) Dawkins just says that if there were enough monkeys and enough time, then shakespear would eventually emerge. What he doesn't understand is logic and math, it does not matter how long or how many monkeys, they would never produce shakespear. I think the only cop out that there really is for atheistic evolution, is that there must be something we do not know yet that will explain the origins of life in a much easier way. Again this is just a big guess, and it would take a good deal of faith, but hey, that's life, scientists really ought to get over themselves.
Chris,
“Firstly, it makes no difference how many chances a single molecule gets, the chance remains extremely dim.”
Actually it does. Molecules don’t act and react randomly remember, they work according to those fundamental 4 forces, thus the chemical bonds. You know, the same bonding process that in the Miller experiments were able to form basce amino acids, the building blocks of RNA and DNA by just letting them sit.
This is why the probabiltiy you used doesn't quite work, as each 'try' wouldn't be to assemble the first molecule in the nucleotide chain, but it would be post amino acid at least and the 'try' thereafter, but I am not a astrobiologist and don't work in aiobgensis.
These chemical bonding processes is why organic matter exists as it does and it’s falling apart as we speak.
“Also, RNA is still extremely complex and the first life would need proteins, no matter what form it took. So the example remains valid.”
RNA is complex, but not so much when compared to DNA, right? RNA is what most microbes are made of and they do just fine, this is why RNA is used as the base point for origins of life and not DNA.
slacker,
"You know, like the probability that life didn't magically appear from nothing.... "
Well organic matter IS something, so sciene as it relates to abiogensis certainly isn't saying organics are nothing.
To Danny,
"chris, all those numbers you made up are meaningless. What's your point anyway? Are you saying life began magically? Magic is a childish idea. "
Actually they arn't meaningless or made, if you would have read his entire arguement, he made a comment about probability. You know, like the probability that life didn't magically appear from nothing....
Can't believe it I've been quote mined, I fele priviledged ( joking).
Yes you have misunderstood me, I can fully understand why people believe in God in fact some of my very best friends do, human nature I love it, I not sure you understand it though
Steve
Steve,
“tgender, Its not hard at all believing in God look at how many humans have over the centuries, I don't know why you should think I would think that.”
I think that because you said “The atheist has no good explanation for how they came to exist. And neither do you tgender my friend, neither do you” and also “I can't be absolutely sure there's no God, as I can't know everything, but all the evidence so far points to there not being one.” If God-believers have no good explanation and all the evidence points to there not being a God, then I conclude you find it hard to believe in God. Otherwise, your belief is against all evidence and therefore irrational. Have I misunderstood you?
Agentorange,
There are some slips in your logic,
Firstly, it makes no difference how many chances a single molecule gets, the chance remains extremely dim. If I flip a coin 9 times and get tails each time, then what would be the chance of getting heads on the 10th time? 50%. This remains the same for first life, if it had 10000000 chances to form, and didn't, then on the 1000000001 time it would still be the exact same probability. Dawkins understands this, he just says that given the extraordinary amount of time and space in the universe, that it would be possible. This despite the fact that the universe is extremely unsuited for life and earth is extremely well suited for life, and the fact that his math is just wrong.
Also, RNA is still extremely complex and the first life would need proteins, no matter what form it took. So the example remains valid.
tgender,
Yes, all evidence must conform to a theory, evolution, gravity, atomic etc. and yes, ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 Fusion are by no means a silver bullet proof, but they are when used collectively with the rest of the evidence quite convincing.
“While hearing the probability cited for an ERV to happen on the video, it made me think about the chances of getting DNA to start with.”
DNA and however it got started isn’t quite understood yet, but the origins are a non factor for evolution to occur. Once life exists it adapts, and that’s all evolution covers. Regarding the ERV’s, there are between 50,000,000-500,000,000 translocation sites that a given virus can reverse transcribe its RNA into our DNA genome, and most it does this at random.
With those kind of odds and, for us and Chimps to share 7 identical ones in identical locations are extreme odds, but evolution with common descent can explain it. This ERV blog site covers it further.
http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/2007/07/retroviral-insertion-is-not-random.html
“The odds are 10^161 to 1 that not one usable protein would have been produced by chance in all the history of the earth.” -James Coppedge, molecular biologist, 1993”
Yes, the one thing Hoyle and others doesn’t include is that no scientists consider that DNA was the original life, rather scientists argue much simpler RNA or base nucleotides were the original life. Secondly, the calculations used to get those odds you cited don’t account for how molecules work according to their chemical bonds and properties and it assumes that every single molecule would have to be perfectly places and only in 1 single chance and no further repetitions or consecutive chances.
“I know about your view that this is not about Evolution (it’s abiogenesis), but it is a question that MUST be answered for your worldview to be true.”
My worldview is science, and for the better part of my life I was agnostic, so regardless if we find the answer to the origins I think I’ll still find myself in this or as a weak atheist stance.
“Do you see that you cannot convince a creationist (or I would think anybody) about the truth of naturalism by ignoring how it all got started?”
I am not interested in convincing people of origins of life, rather I want to dispel myths of what evolution is and isn’t (which you recognize). Well in some regard yes, (especially star, she’s about as close minded to evidence as it gets) but if we find evidence that aliens planted RNA, DNA or how it arose naturally it will be one of those truth is stranger than fiction stories. In face of such evidence people like star will ignore it as with ‘faith’ they can ignore anything, so long as they utterly believe
bakeswife - "
You can not argue a person to believing something he or she is not willing to chose to believe. Find the nearest Christian school or look into home schooling but stop trying to make a blind man see."
You're right, but you're the one that's blinded by your faith, not us who chose to look at things from and objective point of view, searching for facts to support theories and come to a logical conclusion, other than the lazy " the bible says this, so that's how it is". There's a reason that there's a direct relationship to the ignorance of a general population and percentage that believe so vehemently in the supernatural. The more educated a population or society, the more people in said population or society think critically rather than take things at face value because some ancient book says so. People do not become scientists because they're atheists, but they do sometimes become atheists because they're scientists. Knowledge is power, and ignorance is bliss.
I'd like to clarify something I think's been misunderstood however. A person's belief in god or life after death is nothing I have any problem with. I hope there is something beyond this life. But how I look at things critically is that first off, there's no evidence to support this, so I'm not going to claim to "know" that there is life after death. Second, the bible, while not without some historical accuracy, also clearly contradicts itself on numerous occasions, as I've illustrated in an earlier post. That, combined with the fact that the biblical god is petty, vindictive, homicidal and genocidal bigoted and misogynistic and in no way a character to look up to, especially as an example of morality or ethics lead me to the conclusion (much different than a "belief") that even if there is a god, it certainly wouldn't be the biblical one.
ao—
I finally had a chance to view the two videos you suggested. They are quite interesting. I am not a biologist, so some of it was over my head, but I get the gist of what he was saying. I am not really qualified to comment on this evidence, but I can see why it is used in favor of common ancestry. However, I am a rational human being capable of applying logic to problems even when I am not a specialist in every area (this is the same for all of us). I’m sure you would agree that a theory must make sense of all of the evidence, so this is by no means absolute proof for Evolution. While hearing the probability cited for an ERV to happen on the video, it made me think about the chances of getting DNA to start with.
Biologists have discovered that a single cell is enormously complex. I got this from a biology website: “Every cell has a complete ‘instruction manual’ called a genome. The genome is inherited from the parent(s) of the organism. It is the genome that dictates the form and function of an organism. The genome is packaged by the cell to form structures called chromosomes, which contain genes which serve as the ‘words’ of the instruction manual. It is the genes that actually give a cell its specific characteristics. A gene (word) is written using a four-letter alphabet: A,C,G,T. These chemicals are called ‘bases’ and together make up DNA. Just as words vary in length, so do genes. A gene usually has between 1,000 and 100,000 A, C, G, and Ts in different orders or sequences.”
DNA is the genetic blueprint for life and contains information that exceeds that of many encyclopedias. Where did this information come from? It’s our uniform human experience that information comes from an intelligent mind. The probability of DNA, genes, chromosomes, and cells evolving randomly is zero. Here are just a few quotes from scientists on this topic:
“The odds are 10^161 to 1 that not one usable protein would have been produced by chance in all the history of the earth.” -James Coppedge, molecular biologist, 1993
“The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts [zeros] after it…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution…If the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.” -Fred Hoyle, astronomer, physicist, 1984
“An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
-Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, 1981
I know about your view that this is not about Evolution (it’s abiogenesis), but it is a question that MUST be answered for your worldview to be true. Do you see that you cannot convince a creationist (or I would think anybody) about the truth of naturalism by ignoring how it all got started?
I would hope one day, that those who claim to be Christians would stop trying to debate the concept of evolution. God has created all things for His purpose, even the wicked for the day of destruction. Those who say there is no God obviously do not possess the spiritual discernment to believe in Him. Evolution is just another lie from the father of lies, those who are of this family believes all the lies of the devil, those who have been allowed to understand spiritual things know and acknowledge the existence of God. Christians should not even allow their children into the public school system. Instead of continuing to debate and fight about such things, home school or send your children to Christian Schools.
We who believe in God has received the gift of faith to believe, we could not believe if we did not have the will to believe and as you can see those who write in favor of evolution and receive the deceptive concept of evolution have faith to believe in evolution because they chose to do so. What we should be doing is praying that God would impart wisdom and spiritual discernment for those who do not believe in Him to believe.
You can not argue a person to believing something he or she is not willing to chose to believe. Find the nearest Christian school or look into home schooling but stop trying to make a blind man see.
tgender, Its not hard at all believeing in God look at how many humans have over the centuries, I don't know why you should think I would think that, but the other is not difficult either......
Bed time in England, goodnight.
Steve
Steve,
What's so hard about believing that God exists? He does explain the origin of the universe, life, the design we observe in nature, morality, meaning, and purpose. Furthermore, we might think that if God did exist, he might reveal himself to humans in a written revelation. Granted, there are many alleged written revelations of God, but that doesn't mean they are all false—one could be right. How might we discern which one is right? Fulfillment of prophecy is one way. Attestation by miracles is another way. We find both of these in the Bible as well as remarkable harmony in a book written by more than 40 authors over 1500 years. We also have really good evidence that Jesus Christ was raised from the dead. If this event occurred, then we should ask how did this happen? We must conclude by supernatural means because resurrections don't happen naturally. In fact, we find that Jesus predicted his own resurrection as well. God would not raise a heretic, so we should listen to what Jesus teaches.
This is a very broad outline Steve, but if you sincerely follow this trail of evidence I think you will be amazed. At one time, I didn’t believe either.
Tom
The atheist has no good explanation for how they came to exist.
And neither do you tgender my friend, niether do you..............
Steve,
"A wise man would say 'I can't be absolutely sure there's no God, as I can't know everything, but all the evidence so far points to there not being one'"
Respectfully, this is not a wise man, but a fool. All the heavens (nature) declare the glory of God. There is much evidence for the existence of God. In fact, show me the evidence that explains how the universe was created or life originated. The atheist has no good explanation for how they came to exist.
Possibily true, but a wise man would say
" I can't be absolutely sure there's no God, as I can't know everything, but all the evidence so far points to there not being one"
Only a fool says in his heart there is no God.
matucon—
“Biblical evidence is not evidence.”
Why not? I’m not asking you to believe the Bible is the Word of God, but it certainly is an historically reliable document by any standard. There are almost 25,000 manuscripts of the NT and some of them date back to within 25 years of the events. This is far superior to any other ancient writings such as from Homer, Caesar, etc., where the number of copies is small and the interval of time between the earliest copy and the original is 700 years or more.
The writers of the NT were eye-witnesses to the events they recounted. That’s the best kind of evidence (we use that in our court system). The Bible relates historical truth as well as theological truth. You may not believe its theological truth, but you can’t so easily dismiss its historical accuracy. MANY secular scholars admit this, so you are on shaky ground to reject it.
tgender, its not that I'm ignorant to actual evidence that Jesus was resurrected after dying on the cross, its that there IS NONE. Any theological "evidence" is not evidence, any more than people of the time claiming we think with our heart instead of our brain. Biblical evidence is not evidence. If you have an example of objective scientific evidence I'd be interested to hear it.
Tgender, or anyone i am interested on your take on just these 2 peices of evidence. and this is genetics, so it requires some basic understanding of biology.
Evidence of Common Ancestry: ERVs
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
Evidence for Common Ancestry: human chromosome 2
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
Thanks tgender for your reply, Steve
Steve—
I think you are misunderstanding the nature of a miracle, which is a temporary exception to the natural order of things to show that God is working. If God exists, then there is no miracle that is too great for Him, including the creation of the “missing” DNA that you mentioned. A natural explanation is not required by definition. Remember, the Christian view is that God created EVERYTHING out of nothing, so impregnating a woman in a supernatural way is not impossible.
Incidentally, there are two ways one can use miracles in thinking about God’s existence and intervention in the world, depending on your starting point. For Christians, who believe in God, we readily understand that no miracle is too great for God and we expect them of him, such as healings or other answers to prayer. For naturalists, who do not believe in God, “miraculous” events such as the origin of the universe and the resurrection of Christ contribute to a cumulative case for the existence of God since they cannot be explained through natural processes.
"The issue here is not whether your conclusions are valid, but rather the fact that you are able to pursue the evidence wherever it might lead. People want to be able to study, research and question things and they should be allowed! "
Children should not be taught supernatural, ancient myths in science class. ID has no support by science, and therefore has no place in science class. People who believe in ID should actually be thankful it's not being taught in schools, for when the evidence in support of evolution as opposed to ID is made in a true comparative way, it's clear how baseless ID is. At least then there'll still be a bit of hope in brainwashing kids to believe in something that rational thought and common sense tells you not to.
matucon—
I asked “"Have you actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ or have you simply dismissed it out of hand with no examination?" and you replied “What evidence?” followed by all the reasons you say there can’t be any evidence.
So this answers my question. Is this how you do science? You don’t bother to look at the evidence? If you ever do look at the evidence, then let’s talk.
tgender- "The Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is."
It does if you trace the family tree back to Adam.
tgender- “'FACT: Mary could not have gotten pregnant without the sperm of a male.'
This is true unless supernatural means were used and this is exactly the Biblical claim. I would ask you how the universe came into being without a cause?"
Give me evidence other than "the bible says", because it's worthless evidence. Show me one case of spontaneous conception in humans and I'll consider THAT possible. But even then that doesn't mean "god" did it, because other creatures "kimodo dragons, for exampe" have been known to hatch eggs without being around a male. Are these offspring the saviors of kimodo dragons, to die for the sins of kimodo dragons everywhere so long as they accept kimodo dragon jesus into their kimodo dragon heart? There's no need for the supernatural to explain anything now, there no evidence that anything supernatural happened back then, regardless of what the bible says.
"You contradict yourself in this statement. I thought life did have to "spontaneously and magrically sprout into existence" from natural processes in your view. Your evidence is not that good and you can’t give good answers to the most basic questions like how we got life from non-life and how genetic mutation is supposed to improve organisms."
We don't yet fully understand the chemical mechanisms that jump-started life, but that doesn't mean it's god. What I meant by "spontaneously and magically sprout into existence" was organisms appearing in their present form. 99.9% of all organisms to ever live on this planet are extinct, and example of "not-so intelligent design". My arguments, as well as the other arguments present by others in this forum are excellent answers. Your faith simply gives you tunnel vision, as is obvious by your insistence that the bible is a reliable source of ANY information. Besides, wouldn't you think if a supernatural entity did create everything in the vastness of the universe he'd have better things to worry about than masturbation or working on sunday? Seems pretty trivial in the grand scheme of things. You give humans too much credit for their importance in the grand scheme of the universe.
steveh20 wrote: I did not limit or restrict my ideas and came to the conclusion that the universe is 14.5 Ga and that the bio diversity on this planet is due to evolution. I followed the above which you reccommend, so are my conclusions valid?
The issue here is not whether your conclusions are valid, but rather the fact that you are able to pursue the evidence wherever it might lead. People want to be able to study, research and question things and they should be allowed!
tgender, there is it appears to me an unspoken problem concernig the inpregnation of Mary by supernatural means as you mentioned below. How many genes then would Jesus have had, he certainly would have had 23 from Mary but where do the other 23 come from? God does not have DNA as he is light (as you also said earlier) so whose where they? To be a "real" human being he needed the full set. Without the full set how could he be fully God and fully man ( a mystery in itself). Even miracles have praticle considerations. Steve
tgender- "Do you consider it possible that an event like a global flood was so catastrophic that many cultures would make reference to it in their oral and written traditions? Just because the Sumerians wrote it down first doesn’t mean they invented the story. All early cultures were oral."
There's evidence of a local flood in the area thousands of years ago, but it didn't cover the earth, it certainly didn't kill everything on the earth except for animals saved by someone who heard voices in his head. The fact that other stories from Sumeria also made their way to the bible (the discovery of baby Moses, for example) makes scholars as well as myself suspicious the flood wasn't plagiarized as well. My point is that the bible was in no way revolutionary at the time it was written, and what unique passages it has are worthless.
tgender- "Have you actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ or have you simply dismissed it out of hand with no examination?"
What evidence? When jesus died he decayed just like every other human does. While impossible to prove, there's some interesting evidence supporting they've actually found his family tomb and his ossuary where his bones were placed. While it's not a slam dunk, there's more evidence that his bone box is sitting on a shelf in a warehouse in Israel than there is for his magical resurrection and ascension into heaven.
And again, to reiterate, the bible is not the word of god, it's the word of men - ignorant, uneducated and ancient men who believed the earth was the flat center of the universe, around which the sun, planets and stars revolved around. Tell me, if someone walked up to you today and made that claim, and that they know because "god told me", would you follow them? No. But somehow people believe the exact same scenerio when written by that same type of person 2,000 years ago. Unbelievable.
matucon312—
You’ve got so many false assumptions and misunderstandings here that it’s hard to know where to begin.
Do you consider it possible that an event like a global flood was so catastrophic that many cultures would make reference to it in their oral and written traditions? Just because the Sumerians wrote it down first doesn’t mean they invented the story. All early cultures were oral.
“amen” means “it is true”. It is not a reference to an Egyptian god.
“FACT: The earth is older than the Bible says.”
The Bible doesn’t say how old the earth is.
“FACT: Mary could not have gotten pregnant without the sperm of a male.”
This is true unless supernatural means were used and this is exactly the Biblical claim. I would ask you how the universe came into being without a cause?
“FACT: Light could not have existed before the stars.”
Well, it could have because God is light, but I agree with you regarding the universe. I think God created the entire universe in verses 1 and 2 in Genesis 1, including the stars. Some time later, He made the earth habitable for life.
“FACT: The earth is round.”
I agree with you on this one.
“FACT: all life, including humans, evolves over a period of time rather than spontaneously and magically sprouting into existence from dust.”
You contradict yourself in this statement. I thought life did have to "spontaneously and magrically sprout into existence" from natural processes in your view. Your evidence is not that good and you can’t give good answers to the most basic questions like how we got life from non-life and how genetic mutation is supposed to improve organisms.
“You may not be able to reconcile these facts with your faith, but that doesn't mean diminish the information is wrong, it means the BIBLE is wrong.”
You may not be able to reconcile these facts with YOUR faith, but that doesn’t mean the biblical worldview is wrong. It means your atheism is wrong.
A few more issues with the Bible. First and foremost, it is not the word of god, it was written by man, who has proven to be VERY fallible and predisposed to pushing his own agenda. Additionally, people were far less educated back then, if at all, so you're looking at stories written by PEOPLE 2,000 to 3,000 years ago (and in the case of the plagiarized folk tales, even longer), most of which had poor education by the standards of the time, let alone today's. The bible says that god ordered david to take the census in one part, and that satan told him to in another. It also says God ordered the Israelites to sacrifice animals, then didn’t, punishes children for their father’s sins then doesn’t; the list goes on and on. Additionally, pertaining the new testament, it says one plays that Joseph's father was Jacob in one place, Heli in another. Accounts of the resurrection do no better. Mark 16:2 tells us several women arrived at his tomb at sunrise, yet John 20:1 says it was when it was still dark. Luke reports the tomb was open when the women arrived (Luke 24:2), but Matthew indicates it was closed 28:1-2. Matthew saw one angel, John saw two. These are pretty basic concepts to attempt to grasp; the difference between light and dark, open and closed, one and two, shouldn’t be so difficult to describe accurately by a person actually present.
I'm sure you'll rationalize and excuse the laughable inconsistencies, but that doesn't make them any less real. So if the bible can't get the obvious stuff right, how am I to take is seriously on more complicated matters?
serent- "What's so amazing to me is the really BIG CHIP on evolutionists shoulders. You are so un-happy with your life, and you will never admit it. The Bible says unless you have Jesus in your heart, you will never be happy. And you can see it with the nasty, rude, flamming comments that come from atheists/evolutionists on this board. BTW, I still don't understand why you keep coming around bashing on people. Low self esteem, inner hatred for self, never having been liked in life, I'm sure there are lot's of reasons but it all comes down to wanting to know the truth.
Happy V-Day, the greatest valentine's gift ever, JESUS CHRIST!!! Even though your bashing his beloved, he still loves you. "
What is obviously impossible for you to wrap your head around is the Bible is almost entirely false. Even the stories with some historical accuracy are not entirely accurate, and most are folk tales/legends that were plagiarized from earlier religions. Did you know you say "Amen" when your done pray because of Moses' background with the Egyptians and their sun god Amen Ra? As has already been discussed, the flood story was taken from the Sumerians, and virgin birth was used in many religions previous to Christianity. FACT: The earth is older than the Bible says. FACT: Mary could not have gotten pregnant without the sperm of a male. FACT: Light could not have existed before the stars. FACT: The earth is round. And FACT: all life, including humans, evolves over a period of time rather than spontaneously and magically sprouting into existence from dust. You may not be able to reconcile these facts with your faith, but that doesn't mean diminish the information is wrong, it means the BIBLE is wrong.
Huron—
“Imagine if no bible existed and you were plucked down in nature there is no way you would come to believing in the dogma of christianity just by observing nature.”
Well, I would agree with you, but let’s face the facts. We do have the Bible precisely because God also saw the need to reveal himself in words as well as nature.
“The resurrection of jesus is no more an historical fact than mohammed being the prophet of allah or joseph smith finding gold tablets from god in palmeira, new york and all these things happened more recent.”
Have you actually looked at the evidence for the resurrection of Christ or have you simply dismissed it out of hand with no examination? Do we typically evaluate (and dismiss) historical claims by lumping them all together or should we look at them on a case-by-case basis?
agentorange—
“Morals and ethics are relativistic. Look at how our courts adjudicate the difference between murder and accidental manslaughter alone.”
Adjudicating between murder and manslaughter does not mean morality is relative. It simply means we rightfully try to discern the motive and circumstances of a killing to determine the extent of punishment that someone deserves. The Bible clearly uses these same principles. Murder is absolutely wrong according to God for all people. Moral relativism would say murder is right in one culture and wrong in another.
“Do you consider lying to always be 100% wrong in all cases?... Think about that and then tell me if morals are relative to certain circumstances.”
This is a very good question that seems to confuse people, although the answer is not as difficult as many people think. The Biblical principle in these so-called “moral dilemmas” is to do the greatest possible good. In this case, lying to save the Jews is a greater good than handing them over to the Nazis to be killed. But again, this doesn’t make morality relative. It simply means there is a hierarchy of moral values that we are to uphold—and these values come from God, not from cultures. This is perfectly consistent with Scripture.
Huron—
“I think you put words in my mouth with your last comment. Moral relativism and post modern thinking is absurd and wrong.”
I apologize if I put words in your mouth. That was not my intent. I agree with your statement that moral relativism and post-modern thinking are wrong. I conclude that you are a moral relativist, however, because of your claim that “Our morality comes from social standards that we develop over time”. This is the definition of moral relativism and means that you ground morality in human cultures—that is, it morality is “relative” to cultures (or even individuals). I was trying to demonstrate the absurdity of this because different cultures have different morality. My terrorism example was meant to illustrate this. Obviously, the radical Muslims do not agree with your rule to not harm others. But what makes you right and them wrong? The history of humanity is filled with violence, so perhaps we should conclude that harming others is indeed moral. As a Christian, I claim that morality is grounded outside humanity—in the character of God. This provides the absolute standard of right and wrong that we need to call something good and something else evil.
“We should not tolerate others morality if it conflicts with basic human rights.”
I assume you are an Evolutionist, but correct me if I’m wrong. If so, then from where do you get the idea that we have basic human rights? I don’t see how a pile of chemicals has any rights at all. As a Christian, I claim that we have dignity and rights because we were created in the image of God.
Science is a discovery of all there is to discover and everyone should be allow to do just that. Limiting or restricting ideas is not scientific, it's communist.
I did not limit or restrict my ideas and came to the conclusion that the universe is 14.5 Ga and that the bio diversity on this planet is due to evolution. I followed the above which you reccommend, so are my conclusions valid?
"NO theory can be directly tested"
Yes it can. Take the theory of general relativity as an example where two tests come striaght to mind. One is the search for gravitational waves, this is still ongoing and involves mirrors and light beams, it is true that they have not been detected yet but it still is a direct test. Another teast of GR and one which has been succesful is gravitational lensing which (as I'm sure you are away) occurs when light is bent as it travels past an object whose gravity warps spacetime an example of this is multiple images of the same galaxy, on the way it is noted stars close to the Sun change (very slghtly) postion during an eclipse . Glad to sort out this misunderstanding, Steve
I know what a theory is agentorange. And I also know that because a theory, in part, is made up of imagined aspects or units (genes, molecules, etc.) NO theory can be directly tested. A theory can be supported only indirectly as deductions or predictions based on statements of a theory are put to direct test. And furthermore, I totally disagree with your opinion about idea behind science, that it's to reveal and strip away ignorance while revealing knowledge using the scientific method. Science is about understanding our world and everything in it. It's not about proving people wrong, cracking them on the head and calling them "stupid" if they don't agree with you. Science is a discovery of all there is to discover and everyone should be allow to do just that. Limiting or restricting ideas is not scientific, it's communist.
servent
Wish i could have posted longer last night but I had to get some work done. The great thing about science is the ability tio question even the most basic of principles. You have to have patience and the ability to be falsifiable(testable) like Einstein did with relativity but the truth comes out in the end. When he did so he wasn't threatened with eternal torture in hell or something similar but with due skepticism due to the impact of what he had to say. And yet there isn't a scientist to day that would say relativity didn't revolutionize physics. Science is an every approaching ascent to truth utilizing the best method we have. So called sacred texts though contain some good maxims to live by at times also contain portions that strike us as abhorrent and certainly mythic. We find ways to cherry pick the ones we like and ignore the one we don't. Even your name "servent" says a lot about the attitude you approach the bible with. Consider why the mormon's are so convinced, the muslim, and the scientologist. They all claim their faith gives them the greatest inner peace, the greatest wisdom, the ability to perfect themselves. And Why? You say unless you have jesus in your heart you will never be happy. I am happy. I love my family and my life and one day it will end forever. I love the joy of living now and can't pretend to believe though I don't think others are lying when they say they believe I just think they are mistaken. I could be wrong but I make the best decisions I can with the evidence I can gather from many sources. If your god wants blind obedience instead of honest doubt I have no respect for him or any other alleged god that does the same. I wouldn't worship allah, yahweh, baal, becasue I am threatened with torture. The ability to doubt without terroristic threats is the hallmark of freedom.
What's so amazing to me is the really BIG CHIP on evolutionists shoulders. You are so un-happy with your life, and you will never admit it. The Bible says unless you have Jesus in your heart, you will never be happy. And you can see it with the nasty, rude, flamming comments that come from atheists/evolutionists on this board. BTW, I still don't understand why you keep coming around bashing on people. Low self esteem, inner hatred for self, never having been liked in life, I'm sure there are lot's of reasons but it all comes down to wanting to know the truth.
Happy V-Day, the greatest valentine's gift ever, JESUS CHRIST!!! Even though your bashing his beloved, he still loves you.
Because Bob is going CENSOR CRAZY!!!!!!
bobx2x2,
Why did you censor me on that other message board? Did you not see I was about to humiliate notw06 infront of everyone?
While lazy worthless creationist crybabies spread lies about science, scientists are working hard to make discoveries to explain the history of life. Remember the Tiktaalik fossils? Neil Shubin and his team predicted their location in the arctic on a Canadian island and after 4 summers of searching they found exactly what they were looking for, fossils of animals that were transitional between fish and land animals. How did the lazy know-nothing creationists react to these important discoveries? They spread lies about the fossils. That's all the lazy creationists know how to do, constantly lie about everything.
Shubin wrote a book that creationists will never read because they're willfully ignorant, and because they are terrified of science.
Your Inner Fish: A Journey into the 3.5-Billion-Year History of the Human Body by Neil Shubin
"I think evolutionists are scared to death of anything challenging their theory."
Baloney.
The problem is creationists what to force science teachers to teach magic.
Grow up.
song2vs4,
"So much for free thinking and real science. They want to control what people think so badly that it's sad and pathetic. People have a right to investigate things for themselves, especially in schools. "
Science has no problem with new ideas or alternative ideas, in fact that is the very idea behind science, as it's intended to reveal and strip away ignorance while revealing knowledge using the scientific method.
The problem lies not in science itself, but how we validate what is to be taught in schools. We validate what is to be taught as science in schools according to theories that have supportive evidence, are falsifiable, and makes testable predictions.
Intelligent Design hardly passes any of these tests. ID since losing in Dover in 2005 has been pushing this 'teach the controversy' jargon, attempting to give this perception that the main body of evidence somehow doesn't support evolution. They've even gone so far as to ask the kids in schools to make decisions on what they should learn. This is very disingenuous as this type of teaching would never be allowed in a any other formal class. Teenagers whom barely know enough to evaluate and determine their own education are in no way able to know good science from bad science.
If ID wants to be taken serious as a form of science it too must pass every level of critique that all other forms of science must undergo.
I am quite certain that you're one of those people who claim that evolution is just a 'theory', woefully neglecting what 'theory' implies in the scientific context and missing the point all together.
I think evolutionists are scared to death of anything challenging their theory. So much for free thinking and real science. They want to control what people think so badly that it's sad and pathetic. People have a right to investigate things for themselves, especially in schools.
crc wrote
"The greatest farse of all time is evolution. It is scientifically and mathematically proven impossible. It is Biblically wrong. And to top it all off, if evolution could be proven true then there is no God and you for sure wouldn't need saved from your sins because if you "evolved" then you are as perfect as you ever were and should in theory be getting more perfect on your own so you wouldn't need a saviour from anything. So many people just fail to see the falicy and the theological problems with trying to reconcile a perceived problem that they have because they don't understand the science that clearly follows with a 6000 year old creation.
For all you evolutionists, don't bother answering me because you will believe what you "want to" your not interested in truth at all.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear."
Evolution does not require perfection. All that evolution requires is that the organism functions well enough to live long enough to reproduce. To claim it is mathematically and scientifically impossible only shows your ignorance on the subject, as the opposite is actually true. Quoting scripture is not evidence any more than quoting Aesop's Fables. The Bible is wrong on so many levels it'd actually be funny if it weren't so sad that so many people actually believe it. But you are right - I don't need to be saved for my sins, because most of what you classify as "sin" isn't at all, from homosexuality, premarital sex or masturbation to working on Sunday or a child questioning the logic of a parent rather than following blindly. You obviously only believe any pseudo-science that attempts to support your irrational faith in the supernatural. It is this ignorance and lack of critical thinking and objectiveness why people are so vehemently against the teaching of intelligent design (and oxymoron if I ever heard one, as and intelligent designer wouldn't have created over %99.9 of life ever one this planet to fail and become extinct), creation or anything else based in archaic myths written by ignorant MEN, not god.
"To Huron, how in the world could actually say that the flood story was taken from the epic of gilgamesh given that Genesis was written between the 10th and 5th century BC and the epic of gilgamesh was written around the 3rd century BC, Gilgamesh came after the the Flood..."
No it didn't, check your facts. The Gilgamesh story dates back to around 3,300 B.C., where as the plagiarism of it in the Torah was between 500 and 1,500 B.C. Facts are marvelous things.
sorry i should proof read more before i submit.
Slacker
I found that there have been many versions of this story found that date to as early as 2000 BCE or so. The eatliest Sumerian versions date from around 2100 to 2000 BC. The earliest Akkadia versions are dated to 2000-1500 BCE. The akkadian version was preserved on clay tablets from 7th century bce ruler ashurbanipal whose palace was destroyed around 612 BCE.
The earliest of the akkadian versions found date to around 2100 to 2000 BC and were gathered into a standard form by Sin-liqe-unninni between 1300 and 1000BC . I think that you might have got the date mixed with the 3rd century reference up since it is generally thought that the ruler the Epic of Gilgamesh refers to ruled about mid 3rd millenium BC.
Slacker,
"gilgamesh was written around the 3rd century BC, Gilgamesh came after the the Flood... "
I could be wrong, but from what I recall the Mesopotamian Epic of Gilgamesh story dates back further than the OT Jewish Torah, which is at most dated to 1100 BC and likely not even that old. They esitmated the Gilgamesh story dates back to some 2000 bc
I know they found tablets from the Akkadian empire, but the paralells betwen it and the noah story when closely examined show it was an adaptation. I honestly don't know how anyone can try to defend as if it really occured, there are so many scientific impossible things that occured, that's it's embrassing to considering defending it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh
Check out these creationists:
http://www.kkk.com/
Slacker: "don't you think that God could get the animals there."
You realize of course the Noah story is a fairy tale, don't you, Slacker? The person who made it up never for a second thought anyone could believe it. It's called fiction, Slacker. Even today people write novels, which are made up stories. You understand that, don't you? You couldn't possibly believe in a magic man who drowns babies for the fun of it. Nobody is crazy enough to believe that, right?
Mike Gravel, former Alaska senator, candidate for USA president, was asked if he thought creationism should be taught in public schools.
Mike Gravel: "Oh God, no. Oh, Jesus. We thought we had made a big advance with the Scopes monkey trial....My God, evolution is a fact, and if these people are disturbed by being the descendants of monkeys and fishes, they've got a mental problem. We can't afford the psychiatric bill for them. That ends the story as far as I'm concerned."
slacker
I think that you are mistaken but I will need to do some research and get back to you. If I am wrong I will admit it. It may take me an hour or 3 though.
tgender
I'm not a moral relativist. I believe there is always a good or best solution to most problems. Note that I said as long as you don't harm others. Certainly terrorism falls under that. We should not tolerate others morality if it conflicts with basic human rights. Our morality comes from social standards that we develop over time. A lot of people say that the bible has civilized man but I think that it is man that has civilized the bible. When human and animal sacrifice appeared to absurd to be sustained more revelation was proffered to do away with it. When slavery became an atrocity even though it was never condemned in the bible we did away with it. There are many stories and people that used the bible to justify slavery. I will admit that many religious people also opposed slavery and I would shake everyones hand that did and tell them thanks. But they had to use other verses than ones that referred to slavery like love your neighbor as yourself. You speak as if the bible is a clear document but there are over 30,000 distinct christian denominations. You can't get a clear doctrine on salvation, hell, baptism, jesus's last words, ancestry to david, among a host of others. I think you put words in my mouth with your last comment. Moral relativism and post modern thinking is absurd and wrong. Why do we have laws? We just don't reach for the bible and say oh here it says do this. We discuss, debate, and vote. Everyone is welcome to their own opinions just not to their own set of facts.
To AO:
"The ‘dead space’ I am referring to is inside the atom, big difference."
That i can understand, now that you put it into terms a technician, which is what i am, can understand now i can see where that would be true...
To Huron, how in the world could actually say that the flood story was taken from the epic of gilgamesh given that Genesis was written between the 10th and 5th century BC and the epic of gilgamesh was written around the 3rd century BC, Gilgamesh came after the the Flood...
Slacker,
“what tests were done to say that is true, not even that information is given out, explain to me how someone tested this theory that 90% of matter is actually dead space... We don't have alot of deadspace on earth so how can this be tested accurately”
The ‘dead space’ I am referring to is inside the atom, big difference.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/atom6.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6914175.stm
These are some pretty old tests (about as old as relativity), you have the Internet, or go to a bookstore (Barnes and noble or borders) and Amazon read up on them so you can equally research them and understand it for yourself.
www.pa.msu.edu/~sciencet/ask_st/051894.html it’s a .edu, so it’s an educational institution, I think it should be ok.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_theory
I would recommend a book like a the universe in a nut shell by Hawking, or some recent books by Michio Kaku and Neil deGrasse Tyson for work related to physics.
slacker
The story of Noah and the ark is a plagiarism of an older story called The Epic of Gilgamesh. There are so many similarities as to leave little doubt that the author of the noah and ark story drew upon it. Maybe they should have mentioned the use of pitch in the seaworthiness discussion of the ark and I will do some research on it. Saying god took care of the difficulties in getting the animals there is a god of the gaps type approach. Invoke a miracle or god to explain away the difficulties not thoroughly discussed and you have the foundation of all religious apologetics be it christian, mormon, muslim, hindu, or other.
Tgender,
“In fact I don’t believe it because it’s called moral relativism, which is clearly false. You claim there are no absolute moral principles”
Morals and ethics are relativistic. Look at how our courts adjudicate the difference between murder and accidental manslaughter alone.
Do you consider lying to always be 100% wrong in all cases?
Consider yourself as a German during WW2 and you’re hiding your Jewish friends from the Nazis who you know are going to kill them. Now, when the Nazis ask if you’re hiding any Jews, is the more moral thing to capitulate with them and tell them exactly where they are b/c you can’t lie b/c your sacred book says so.
Or would you not tell them b/c you think the jews don’t deserve the unjust death that certainly awaits them?
Think about that and then tell me if morals are relative to certain circumstances.
We as a society deem what is moral and ethcial to a large degree and we sanction and adjudiacate our laws accordingly.
To AO:
"Did you know according to atomic theory over 90% of matter is in fact void dead space? Sounds nuts, but it’s true. But you wont question this b/c it doesn’t conflict with your religion."
I guess the question i have the most is, what tests were done to say that is true, not even that information is given out, explain to me how someone tested this theory that 90% of matter is actually dead space... We don't have alot of deadspace on earth so how can this be tested accurately...
to Huron:
"matucon
a great wbsite is www.talkorigins.org if you want to see some evolution stuff and rebuttals to creationist arguments "
Nice Website, very one sided and i have to admit when you take God out of the Equision, all of the arguments do hold water. There is one that i have been reading because it is something that I am very interested in personally...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Several question where asked on this section about Noahs ark, how the ark was seaworthy and how the animals got there, how they were loaded and how the crew took care of them. My question is this, if God told Noah that there was a flood coming that God would create to wipe out the Sin that man has created, don't you think that God could get the animals there. Also one thing that is left out that I find very interesting when they discuss the seaworthness of the Ark, they leave out the main ingredient that made the Ark and most other Wood structure boats seaworthy for thousands of years, was "pitch", it explains it in the Bible that Noah lined the ark with pitch to seal the Ark, however these folks on this website leave that little nugget out...
slacker,
‘Sounds like yall can fool everyone most of the time by making it more difficult to understand or maybe you can use the "your not a scientist" routine when someone questions it...”
No, what I am saying is it’s a complex theory, just like how Quantum mechanics or atomic theory are equally complex theories and generally people are too lazy to do the needed research to understand the very basic principles at hand and find it hard to understand. Did you know according to atomic theory over 90% of matter is in fact void dead space? Sounds nuts, but it’s true. But you wont question this b/c it doesn’t conflict with your religion.
In essence, as science becomes more and more complex it become harder for the laymen (you) to understand and accept the notions put forth by them. Sciences aren’t something that are easily ‘dumbed down’ for the yokels. If you have legit questions on evolution are genuinely want to know what I know than I would be grateful to help in that regard
Huron—
“But forcing other people to abide by your morality when their lifestyle affects only themselves or other consenting people is immoral itself. Freedom is the ability to live as you deem fit so long as you do no one else harm or abridge their liberties. I know that sounds like a definition I made up but I think that it is generally true.”
You’re right, you made this up. So why should I believe it? In fact I don’t believe it because it’s called moral relativism, which is clearly false. You claim there are no absolute moral principles…except your absolute moral principle that everyone should tolerate everyone else’s morality. That’s just plain crazy. Americans call terrorism evil, but most Muslims don’t. Whose right? Both can’t be right. As long as you try to ground morality in humanity, you will have a shifting source of morality that is based on self-gratification and majority control. If someone stole your car, I bet you’d pretty quickly acknowledge that stealing is absolutely wrong.
Morality is not what “consenting people do” that “only affects themselves” (how can you be sure that it only affects themselves anyway?). Morality must transcend humanity and is grounded in the immutable character of God.
To Bob:
"To be fair I will tell you what I am. I don't believe in any designers or gods or supernatural magicians. I am convinced science can solve virtually any problem. An unanswerable question, like what was there before the Big Bang, does not mean the answer is magic. It only means the natural explanation is unknown."
Sounds like you do believe in a God... and Science is that God....
To AO:
"Evolution is quite complex and isn’t something that one can learn in a single academic quarter and fully in detail. Most people aren’t every literate in science at all, and especially so as such sciences become ever more complex. It requires at least a basic understanding of biology, genetics, paleontology and geology and perhaps other closely related sciences, this is part of why so few understand what it involves and what evidence there is for it. This is why globally, the USA ranks only just above Turkey in terms of accepting evolution."
Sounds like yall can fool everyone most of the time by making it more difficult to understand or maybe you can use the "your not a scientist" routine when someone questions it...
to Torus:
"Slacker -
There are no opposing viewpoints on the same level as science. There is science and then there is non-science. People can't "decide for themselves which is right" because what is right is not a matter of personal choice. What's right is a matter of facts. People don't get to decide whether to believe in gravity, whether to believe the earth is round, whether to believe the sun is a chariot, and so on. Would you advocate these "opposing viewpoints"? "
My point exactly you won't allow people to think for themselves because you know that if the average person and both of us know that the average person don't know nor probably doesn't care about evolution i know i don't because it isn't gonna change my everyday life, Jesus still lives and thats more really then evolution, now because these opposing viewpoints are quashed by the scientific community there is no dialogue as you, Bob and AO have proven in this thread, you all don't want discussion you want blind admission that there is no flaw in evolution yet you can't prove to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that evolution doen't have any flaws nor can you prove that God didn't create the Universe and everything in it, so until the scientific communtiy comes down off its high horse and allows fair dialogue there is no discussion... And most likely i will either see a response of "your not a scientist you wouldn't understand" or some other nonesense because that is all i have heard from anyone on this post, becides Bob who hates just about everyone....
Btw, I read an article about a find they made in Rio here recently that I wanted to comment on, while i was reading this article which was about a "missing link" between modern crocodiles and ancient crocodiles, what kept poping into my head was that there was no data in the article to support there "missing link" theory, there were no pictures of the fossils there was no information whatsoever for a common person to make their own judgment about whether that was fact of fiction, now I ask you how is that fare to put off information without any repercussions, if your wrong you just say oh the data showed that at the time and we move on, but no there isn't any discussion, 5 or 6 people decided that was a "missing link" and thats it... Sounds like what bob was talking about in relations to Orwelle....
"evolution" into the state science curriculum for the first time. Currently, "biological changes over time"
A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet, and personally it’s of little consequence of what the title is, whether its evolution or biological changes over time. They both imply the very same message and what’s more important is the details regarding evidence, processes involved, and testing methods used to support the theory.
“…schools would not only be required to teach evolution by name but also more in-depth to students.”
Evolution is quite complex and isn’t something that one can learn in a single academic quarter and fully in detail. Most people aren’t every literate in science at all, and especially so as such sciences become ever more complex. It requires at least a basic understanding of biology, genetics, paleontology and geology and perhaps other closely related sciences, this is part of why so few understand what it involves and what evidence there is for it. This is why globally, the USA ranks only just above Turkey in terms of accepting evolution.
If our country wants to remain viable as a leader in engineering and sciences we must do our best to ensure the next generation can be competitve in the global economy. In terms of education and the fruits of such labor, it's not a race to the bottom, but a race to the top and the smartest overall socities will be the inovators and patent holders of tommorow.
tgender,
The point I have about morality and government is that it shouldn't be used to impose on people laws abridge their freedoms. Red flags should be raised when laws are proposed that have no basis other than religion. I'm not saying that everything in the bible is wrong there are some good maxims and so forth as in the book of mormon, koran, the illiad and oddysey though they all also contain atrocities. But forcing other people to abide by your morality when their lifestyle affects only themselves or other consenting people is immoral itself. Freedom is the ability to live as you deem fit so long as you do no one else harm or abridge their liberties. I know that sounds like a definition I made up but I think that it is generally true.
I can understand a deist stance toward believing in god. But to jump to a particular belief such as christianity, mormonism, islam, etc is not supportable by the evidence. Imagine if no bible existed and you were plucked down in nature there is no way you would come to believing in the dogma of christianity just by observing nature. The resurrection of jesus is no more an historical fact than mohammed being the prophet of allah or joseph smith finding gold tablets from god in palmeira, new york and all these things happened more recent. The historical record outside the bible of jesus josephus/talmud/church fathers etc do not attest to the veracity of the miracles he allegedly performed. The comment by Josephus is most noticeably recognized as a christian adulteration of what he actually said about jesus. I have no problem with believing that people believed in jesus after his death. The prophecies in the Old Testament that are cited to be fulfilled in the New testament are taken out of context and the jewish faith has a clear record of showing this. The book "Why the Jews Rejected Jesus" by David Klinghofer foes into this in detail
TheHuron137--
You’re talking about epistemology—how we know things, which was not the point of my post; so I’d like to respond in two parts. The first part is to expand on my original point and the second part is to address the issues you raised.
My first post was about metaphysics—what is real? My point was that both atheists and Christians make truth claims about what is real. Does God exist or not, where do we get morality from, and so forth. Furthermore, we act on these beliefs, both privately AND publicly. I was trying to establish common ground on this point because I get a little tired of hearing “keep your morality and religion out of government.” Well, I can just as easily respond with “keep YOUR atheistic morality and religion (read worldview) out of government.” The truth is both sides want people to believe and act on the truth claims they have made.
On to your points above. I agree with you on one broad point: We should not believe and put faith in things that are not warranted by the evidence. This goes for gravity as well as religion. Anything less is irrational. I disagree with you when you conclude that ALL beliefs about God are irrational. I think the evidences for a theistic God and Christianity in particular are enormous—enough such that I have put my full faith and trust in them. And these evidences are not just special revelation (the Bible). They also come from general revelation (nature) as revealed by our own experiences as well as through scientific investigation. They also come from history—the resurrection of Jesus Christ is an historical fact that is difficult to dispute.
JoshGilman: "matucon312, Instead of insultng me and labeling me as creationist..."
Hello, I'm bobx2x2 from Florida.
JoshGilman, are you a creationist or an intelligent design creationist or are you pro-science?
Do you completely accept evolution?
Do you agree it's a proven fact that humans developed from ancient apes?
Do you invoke magic (god, designer, creator, intelligent design, etc.) for anything? If yes, what do you invoke magic for?
I ask because some questions you asked earlier sure makes you look like an anti-science believer in intelligent design magic.
So why not tell us what you are, so nobody has to guess.
Oh, and please don't make the claim that invoking intelligent design is any different from invoking magic. Believe what you want, but I have zero respect for dishonesty.
To be fair I will tell you what I am. I don't believe in any designers or gods or supernatural magicians. I am convinced science can solve virtually any problem. An unanswerable question, like what was there before the Big Bang, does not mean the answer is magic. It only means the natural explanation is unknown.
The diversity of life, the origin of life, the evolution of DNA, the origins of stars and planets, are all the result of natural processes. Scientists still don't have all the answers, but for every unsolved problem, there is a scientist who hasn't been born yet who will solve it some day. The Magic Man, or Designer, or whatever anti-science people call god these days, is obsolete. It's time for the world to grow up and stop pretending there's an invisible man hiding in the clouds.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
-- Charles Darwin
josh gillman
oops i did it again. i meant to address this to josh or any other creationist, intelligent designer, or anyone just interested in evolution
matucon
a great wbsite is www.talkorigins.org if you want to see some evolution stuff and rebuttals to creationist arguments
i didn't mean to include that last paragraph. i had copied it from tgender to respond to.
tgender
consider this is a response from an humanist/atheist/rationalist. Religion depends in the most general sense upon revealed information notably from their god to supply answers. A rationalsit uses reason and objective evidence to arrive at conclusions. I do not think that it is just as irrational to not believe in bigfoot/ufos/homeopathy/ etc as it is to believe in these things. Is there good evidence to support bigfoot/ufos/homeopathy? The answer is no. For references see Skeptic magazine, Skeptical Inquirer, Free Inquiry, or the Humanist. Not being neutral on a subject such as these does not mean you belong in the same category as them. Rationalsits et al don't avoid the issues by saying that religion and government should be separate. We just don't want our freedoms civil liberties violated by imposition of law. We are happy to debate and love exercising our right to free speech. It seems difficult to believe that noone in the rationalist camp would address your ideas. Most I know would have been all over that in a heart beat. They are also softball type questions we here a lot. Like hearing a true believer bringing up Pascal's Wager as if they expect it to be a silver bullet to belief though it amounts to the true believer thinking they can lie to god if god is real.
Atheism/secularism/humanism/naturalism is just as much a religion as Christianity or Islam or Hinduism. There’s no such thing as neutrality regarding the kinds of questions that religion (or worldview) tries to answer. These questions include whether or not God exists, what kind of God exists, where/how did everything come from, what happens after we die, where do we get morality from, what is moral, how should we live, why is there evil and suffering, etc. Atheists have answers to each one of these questions and they very clearly affect their public policies and actions, just like it does Christians. All this talk about keeping morality and religion out of government is a smokescreen to avoid the real issue about what the right answers are to these questions. I wish you or any atheist would be honest enough to admit that.
matucon312,
Instead of insultng me and labeling me as creationist (even though nowhere have I ever stated such a thing) how about you link to some of this evidence? As far as I know the scientists that were doing the tests were NOT doing it in the same conditions as primitive earth.
Calm down some. There's really no need to get worked up, if you know you're right why get so angry when someone puts up an opposing view?
TheHuron137--
Read my original post and then respond to that; then at least you'll see where I'm coming from.
tgender
Sorry but I didn't quite get your point. We are out there to submit our opinions and evidence to the world but being called religious because you criticize religion is just as absurd as being called newage for critisizing new age ideas.
Non-religious people are religious.
Science is a religion.
Supernatural magic is science.
War is peace.
Black is white.
blackwhite- The ability to accept whatever "truth" the party puts out, no matter how absurd it may be. Orwell described it as "...loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this. It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and forget that one has ever believed the contrary."
http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/ns-dict.html
Paul Burnett said “If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not playing softball is a sport.”
Unfortunately Paul has missed the point entirely. There is no neutrality in atheism as it represents a very specific view of how the world really is. To use his own analogy, atheists are indeed “in the game”. It’s not like they’re not playing; their one of the teams—and that was my point. If they’re not playing, then why are they posting here and arguing their point of view?
"Wow, Florida is actually considering coming into the 21st century."
We aren't just considering it. We are going to do it this month. Quite an improvement from living in the 17th century.
It's interesting that the same people who attack science education are the people most in need of science education. In Florida, they are finally going to get educated, whether they like it or not.
Wow, Florida is actually considering coming into the 21st century. I still find it ironic when religious people refer to evolution as a religion. Basically there insulting it by trying to bring it down to the level of unsubstantiated assertions of religion. It's become another propaganda line that they haven't actually considereed what it implies. Like when creationists throw out Piltdown man when debating though it is actually a testament of the ability of science to reexamine itself unlike religion. The word theory in science does not mean the same thing as what lay people use the word as. It means an idea that combines different facts and observed phenomena. Like the theory of gravitation, germs, kidney function, circuit theory, and so on.
Bob -
Don't let yourself get so bothered by the likes of Topekan. It's obvious that he has no idea what he's talking about (more than most here) and isn't worthy of engaging in the conversation.
Topekan, what part of "DNA analysis doesn't lie" don't you understand, and why do you insult the hard work of tens of thousands of scientists?
Bobx2x2 I agree, teachers shouldn't spend class time talking about religious myths. That's why evolution shouldn't be taught, it is a bunch of religious myths accepted on faith without bothering to examine them using the scientific method. Ergo, it is not science, and doesn't belong in science class.
Thank you tgender, much appreciated, Steve
TWPeck, nobody ever said whales developed from hippos. Hippos and whales share an ancient ancestor. There is no doubt about this because DNA analysis doesn't lie. There is only one way to interpret it. The same method is used for paternity testing in humans. There is only one possible correct answer for paternity testing in humans and there is only one possible correct answer for testing evolutionary relationships because both tests use the EXACT SAME METHOD.
There is no debate about the basic facts of evolution. Biologists know all life evolved and they know all life is related. Evolution is not an opinion. Evolution is not just one way of interpreting evidence. Evolution, including our evolution from ancient apes, is a proven beyond any doubt fact. The creationists are lying when they claim their magical creation idea is equal to the science of evolution. The creationists in Florida would like to try to force science teachers to do their lying for them, but they will never get away with it. The new Florida public school science standards, written by science teachers and scientists, will soon be approved without any changes. It's disgraceful it has taken this long, but despite the Christian war against science, Florida students will finally get a decent 21st century education.
"can't wait to see how much trouble they're going to get with this one. "Mrs. Fox, how did evolution begin? How was the first DNA created?", "Well honey, we don't know."
Should be interesting to say the least. "
Actually, there are many experts that not only have theories on how this happened, but are able to test it in laboratories. You'd know this if you actually researched the topic outside of the dogmatic perspective of creationists. There's never been an argument from evolution, for intelligent design that's been anything but laughable. Ignorance is bliss.
Slacker: "We talk only of evolution and call all other view points uneducated, idiotic or creationist."
If you are talking about a public school science classroom, you are wrong. Science teachers teach science. They don't say anything about non-scientific subjects like your intelligent design magic. Magic is not science. Why should a science teacher waste one second of limited classroom time talking about religious myths? Science classes are for science only.
I can't wait to see how much trouble they're going to get with this one. "Mrs. Fox, how did evolution begin? How was the first DNA created?", "Well honey, we don't know."
Should be interesting to say the least.
"It is saying that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). In other words, God did not begin creating with pre-existing materials. Rather, He simply spoke the universe into being from nothing at all."
Oh, now THAT makes sense. Tell me, where's the evidence to support this as being the way everything in the universe? The source(s) of theists are the same ancient books that brainwash people into believing condoms are worse than AIDS, hurricanes and tsunamis are caused by gay people, and in the grand scheme of the entire universe (try to wrap your head around the scale of it) what we eat, who we sleep with or *GASP* masturbation actually matter one iota. If there were a supreme being that created the universe, I think it would have more important things to worry about than me picking up sticks on a Sunday. Fuzzy thinking is the shadow of ignorance.
"If evolution is so set, then why all the opposition to presenting alternate theories and then opening up a critical evaluation of both."
There have already been countless critical evaluations!!!!!!!!!!! What don't you people get? Evolution is the accepted theory because when held up in experiment after experiment after experiment to competing theories, it has the most evidence to support it's validity, not because the scientists WANT it to, but because it DOES. Read something other than a bible and you'd know this.
Here lies the source of frustration for people who believe in science as opposed to the supernatural. You don't seem to get that evolution is based on scientific observation, and intelligent design is NOT. There have been MANY objective, scientific experiments that prove there is NO need for a "supernatural" factor in the existence of ANYTHING. That's why evolution is taught in science class - because it's SCIENCE. The reason we don't discuss "opposing viewpoints" is because when held to the same scientific standards as any other theory, in any realm of science, they fail miserably. Heck, there's more evidence for bigfoot and the loch ness monster than there is for god, yet we don't learn about them in biology or zoology, so where does that leave the validity of the bible or a supernatural being? To say it takes more faith to believe in the current scientific theories than the bible only illustrates that you've either done little to no actual research, or you're simply blinded by faith. This country was founded by secularists, so if you want a theocracy, move to Iran.
steveh20—
The NIV is a bit more readable than the translation you cited. It says “By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible” (Heb 11:3).
It is saying that God created the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing). In other words, God did not begin creating with pre-existing materials. Rather, He simply spoke the universe into being from nothing at all.
"so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear. "
The above from the NT was quoted a little earlier. Could somebody actually explain to be what it actually says. The structure of the sentance seems to make no sense what so ever. This request has nothing to do whether it is true or not I just want to understand what it is actually saying. Thanks
P.s Maybe the poster would like to elaborate?
The issue here is not "the facts" it is the interpretation of facts since we are not dealing with something that can be determined by the scientific method but by analysis.
For example, the whale and the hippo have a large number of DNA markers. Those who already believe in evolution say this points to a mutual ancestor, those who are creationists would say that this indicates God used a template to create animals.
The "scientific" community is so afraid of the Creation argument that they censor it, yet they themselves also contradict this (there is "new" research that indicates the ancestor of the whale was NOT a hippo but a rat-like creature). Also, this is sometimes done on the flimsiest of evidence that "confirms" evolution but has later proved to be false.
The real problem is that there is a lack in the scientific community to find truth and they are desparately seeking proof. Rather than looking at the theory and saying "is this true" or "are we interpreting the data correctly", they are saying "see this IS proof" and, because they are "scientists" they could not possibly be wrong about their interpretation.
If evolution is so set, then why all the opposition to presenting alternate theories and then opening up a critical evaluation of both.
It is very sad that those who claim to be seeking fact would rather suppress fair analysis than to seek the truth.
What requires more faith? Believing in a Creator, or in the philosophy of Oops? Is “oops” the best that materialism can come up with? Is oops truly a more rational conclusion than design? It would take more faith than I could possibly muster in order for me to accept that the universe is simply a product of oops. Especially in light of modern scientific discoveries that continually point toward a supernatural explanation. While evolution is indeed a fact, Darwinism grows ever more faint. Materialists cling to the corpse of Darwin, using not science or reason to hold their position, but rather sophistry and rhetoric.
http://thoughtsongod.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/unlocking-the-mystries-of-life/
Slacker -
There are no opposing viewpoints on the same level as science. There is science and then there is non-science. People can't "decide for themselves which is right" because what is right is not a matter of personal choice. What's right is a matter of facts. People don't get to decide whether to believe in gravity, whether to believe the earth is round, whether to believe the sun is a chariot, and so on. Would you advocate these "opposing viewpoints"?
What we need Bob is less Name Calling and more dialogue, there is no talk in schools or else where about opposing viewpoints to evolution. We talk only of evolution and call all other view points uneducated, idiotic or creationist. How about we discuss opposing viewpoints and allow people to decide for themselves what is right...
"you actually compared Christians to Extremist muslims"
I compared Muslim creationists who destroy people to Christian creationists who destroy minds.
It's a fair comparison. Both the terrorists and most Christians are creationists. Both groups are making the world worse instead of better. The Muslim creationists give the world more violence, and the Christian creationists give the world more ignorance. On 9/11 there was a lot of violence in one day thanks to Muslim creationists. On every single day there is a lot of ignorance thanks to Christian creationists. Which is worse? They are both terrible. We don't need creationist violence and we don't need creationists attacking science education in Florida and other creationist infested states.
I flagged my own comment...
I rest my case......
"I say we let people choice instead of forcing evolution down their throat like we do with everything else..."
When the flat-earthers provide some evidence for their intelligent design magic, and when the scientific community is able to repeatedly and successfully test their magic, then it would be OK to make magic part of a biology class curriculum. I strongly doubt there will ever be any evidence for magic, because magic is a childish idea.
Slacker: "If you don't buy evolution you are uneducated or some other outside fringe."
I agree.
Good God Bob, you actually compared Christians to Extremist muslims, absolutely amazing how your hatred for all people has effected your judgement as well... As for this article how about we allow dialogue on the subject, all i have heard from the responders is how anyone that doesn't accept evolution as fact is out of there mind, stupid or creationists. What a shocking revalation, why don't we let people, all people, Think for themselves, not just what one certain side thinks... The reason evolution has been taught for so long isn't because it is fact but because the same scientist that have touted it refuses to allow anyone to tell them they could be wrong. If you don't buy evolution you are uneducated or some other outside fringe. I say we let people choice instead of forcing evolution down their throat like we do with everything else...
crc: "It is Biblically wrong."
It sure is. We agree about that. The obvious solution is throw out your worthless Bible and join the 21st century.
The greatest farse of all time is evolution. It is scientifically and mathematically proven impossible. It is Biblically wrong. And to top it all off, if evolution could be proven true then there is no God and you for sure wouldn't need saved from your sins because if you "evolved" then you are as perfect as you ever were and should in theory be getting more perfect on your own so you wouldn't need a saviour from anything. So many people just fail to see the falicy and the theological problems with trying to reconcile a perceived problem that they have because they don't understand the science that clearly follows with a 6000 year old creation.
For all you evolutionists, don't bother answering me because you will believe what you "want to" your not interested in truth at all.
Rom 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
Heb 11:3 Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear.
matucon312, I pretty much agree with everything you said except this: "No one knows what happens when we die - even the religious."
I know what happens when we die. The same thing that happens to every other dead animal. Bacteria and maggots feast on the internal organs, everything stinks, it's the most horrible smell imaginable, and the dead body eventually decomposes into nothing. Of course you already knew this, so I was surprised you said "No one knows what happens when we die".
The rest of your comments were excellent, especially "Altruistic behavior exists throughout nature".
This is a very interesting subject. Altruism has been observed in our closest non-human cousins, the chimps. I have read stories of dolphins saving the lives of people in the oceans.
Something I found out recently about chimpanzees is very interesting. Their brains have the exact same structure as the human brain. The quality of the human brain and the chimp brain is the same. The only difference is the human brain evolved to be larger.
Another interesting thing I recently learned about chimpanzee apes is they have a much better short-term memory than human apes. I saw a few videos that tested the short-term memory of humans and chimpanzees. The humans struggled with the test. For the chimps it was a simple and easy.
The uneducated Christians who are attacking science education in Florida don't have any idea how interesting science is. They don't know what they're missing.
And a few quotes for people who don't get what the founding fathers meant by "separation of church and state":
"..the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion.." - George Washington, excerpt from The Treaty of Tripoli, signed by John Adams.
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." and also stated "Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear." and "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
James Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States."
That help clarify the intent of the founding fathers regarding separation of church and state? There's more if you choose to look.
"Bob, God can change your nihilistic stony heart and give you a heart of flesh. "
I really hope you're being sarcastic! What I really want to see is god miraculously heal an amputee.
Atheism/secularism/humanism/naturalism are concerned with what's in man's best interest, not a mythical sky-fairy. Anyone who suggests the Judeo/Christian/Muslim god is a model of morality is a model themselves for absurdity. No one can prove a god doesn't exist, but there's absolutely no evidence to support that one does. No one knows what happens when we die - even the religious. They have theories, but the only support they have is an ancient text with laughable inconsistency within it's own stories. throw in such profound findings such as a round earth that revolves around the sun ,that is not the center of the universe and that is actually millions of years old and I'm only beginning to illustrate the absurdity of the Bible as factual, let alone infallible. Altruistic behavior exists throughout nature, which you'd know if you actually read books on Darwinian evolution and biology rather than fret over how science is continuing to eliminate rabbit holes for a god to hide in. I'm only allotted so much space to type, so any other questions, feel free to ask.
Bobx0: “All creationists are the same, whether they are Muslim terrorists or Christians.”
Bob, God can change your nihilistic stony heart and give you a heart of flesh.
I just saw the movie "United 93" on HBO. The passengers, the pilots, and the flight attendants were all murdered for God. Murdered by creationists.
I don't see a lot of difference between Muslim creationists who murder innocent people and Christian creationists who destroy the minds of their own children. The creationists who are attacking science education in Florida where I live are not satisfied with wasting the lives of their children. Their goal is to destroy the education of all public school students. They know nothing about science, but their ignorance is not stopping them from attacking the new science standards that were written by experts, the science teachers and scientists of Florida.
All creationists are the same, whether they are Muslim terrorists or Christians. Both want to make the world worse than it already is. They want more violence or they want more ignorance.
Christian creationists who destroy minds are losing and they are losing badly. The new science standards in Florida will be approved without any changes. Florida students will learn about evolution and they will understand evolution is one of the big ideas of science. Christians can attack education all they want, but they will never be allowed to succeed.
Tgender lied: "Atheism/secularism/humanism/naturalism is just as much a religion as Christianity..." If atheism is a religion, not collecting stamps is a hobby, and not playing softball is a sport.
Different people look for "the right answers...to these questions" in different ways. Some folks want to rise above the Bronze Age / Dark Ages mentality of religious oppression, and propose honest / humane / rational answers. But the Pastor Bubbas of Swamplick and the American Taliban want to take the vote away from women (because it's in their Book) and re-institute slavery and child abuse (because it's in their Book) and execute people for lots of different "crimes" (because it's in Leviticus) and take away the 21st century. Can you see why some people might oppose this?
"All this talk about keeping morality and religion out of government is a smokescreen to avoid the real issue about what the right answers are to these questions."
You miss the point, as most theists do, the problem is REVEALED morality and religion. You come around with a three-thousand-year-old manuscript that for all anyone knows is nothing but myths and folk-tails, and try to have it taught in the public schools as fact! Give me a break!
Out of thousands of moral "teachings" the same book has a few (very few) precepts that could be considered moral by most humans alive today, but there are a couple of problems. To decide for yourselves which of the precepts you wish to follow, you go through the exact same process everyone does, that is, you decide for yourself. Second thing is, the bible (old or new testament) contains absolutely NO precepts that were not already in the culture thousands of years before.
matucon312--
“The problem secularists have is when beliefs with nothing more than blind faith in irrational things from ancient texts try to influence the lives of others in a detrimental way.”
OK, I’ll try this with you. I’ve made this same post in two other threads and not one naturalist has responded to it.
Atheism/secularism/humanism/naturalism is just as much a religion as Christianity or Islam or Hinduism. There’s no such thing as neutrality regarding the kinds of questions that religion (or worldview) tries to answer. These questions include whether or not God exists, what kind of God exists, where/how did everything come from, what happens after we die, where do we get morality from, what is moral, how should we live, why is there evil and suffering, etc. Atheists have answers to each one of these questions and they very clearly affect their public policies and actions, just like it does Christians. All this talk about keeping morality and religion out of government is a smokescreen to avoid the real issue about what the right answers are to these questions. I wish you or any atheist would be honest enough to admit that.
I think that it only will serve the purpose of advancing science and inquiry to allow for a free discussion and explanation of the various oppositions pros and cons to each of the different concepts of origins. It does not have to negate scientific discoveries or even imply that one's beliefs over ride imperial evidences, such as trace evidences for common decent. It should not however ignore evidences to the contrary. If you want good science, then it demands investigation. While evolution may be the official standing of NAS, it does mean that methodological natural evolution perfectly explains everything. Numerous philosophical impositions have been imputed into the theory which can in fact derail scientific advancement if wrong.
"I really love how all you Darwin-lovers can’t wait for a new article on Evolution to appear here so you can repeat all those tiresome and weak arguments! Not to mention the immature insults too. "
Tiresome and weak arguments? Compared to what? I'm not going to make any assumptions on the source of your comment, but the "arguments" for Darwinian evolution are far from weak - that's why it's the accepted scientific theory by experts who dedicate their lives to the field. They're not "arguments", it's evidence, and if it was weak, it would not be accepted, as that's how science and scientists work.
The source of the vast majority of opposition to the teaching of evolution comes from those who cling to the Bible as being not just somewhat accurate, but infallible and factual. This is NOT the case, as is easily proven; hence "faith" is the only thing keeping people following it. The reason forward thinking people are so eager to chime in on topics such as this is because we're fed up, especially in the U.S., with the ancient dogma's of some people impeding the progress of our society as a whole. I will never have a problem with a person's personal beliefs regarding faith in God, Jesus, Allah, Vishnu, Jupiter, Ra or any other deity. The problem secularists have is when beliefs with nothing more than blind faith in irrational things from ancient texts try to influence the lives of others in a detrimental way.
I really love how all you Darwin-lovers can’t wait for a new article on Evolution to appear here so you can repeat all those tiresome and weak arguments! Not to mention the immature insults too.
"What a perfect description of the uneducated flat-earthers who want to throw out science standards written by scientists and science teachers."
I had always thought "flat-earther" was just a euphemism for people who thought irrationally, so for fun, I checked for a website. They really exists ... and they think that a spherical earth is just a big conspiracy, maintained by less than 100 people. Just for the record ... most of them are atheists, by their own admission.
"Pastor Bubba of the Swamplick Church of Floribama"
Thanks Paul Burnett. What a perfect description of the uneducated flat-earthers who want to throw out science standards written by scientists and science teachers. I live in Florida and I've been watching all these hicks come out of nowhere to complain about science being taught in a science class. Fortunately the people who are afraid of science will be ignored. The new excellent science standards will be approved and Florida students will finally get a decent 21st century education.
One of the speakers hit the nail on the head: “But Debra Walker, chairman of the Monroe County School Board, urged passage of the new standards as is. She said the current “political meltdown over Darwinian theory” was proof that too many people had received a poor-quality science education. She noted that the school districts with some of the lowest science scores on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test were the ones complaining loudest about the new standards. “Do we want these boards setting science policy in Florida? I think not.” - Orlando Sentinal
Why should the "opinions" of Pastor Bubba of the Swamplick Church of Floribama be given more credence than the expertise and knowledge of the professional educators and scientists who wrote the new standards?
It is SCIENCE class, not mythology or theology class. The reason Darwinian evolution is still taught as the accepted theory for, fittingly, the origin of species is that it has held up to scrutiny time and time again. As new information is discovered, Darwinian evolution continues to not only work, but be reinforced. Intelligent design, creation or whatever version of Biblical origins people want forced into SCIENCE class has continued, and will continue, to fail because it has absolutely zero basis in scientific fact or theory. The only evidence to support it is the Bible, which proves itself wrong on countless occasions, eliminating the need for me to do so here.
And therein lies the biggest reason to keep religion separate from both the classroom as well as government; science, history and anything else based in fact and rational thought will change their books so they represent the facts. The religious try to change the facts to fit their books, and this kind of blind faith and fuzzy thinking is exactly why our nations education systems (as well as others) lag behind more secular nations, both in the east and the west. Freedom of religion means freedom FROM religion. What part of separation of church and state don't people understand?
My serious advice to that school board in Florida is not to let man make monkeys out of us.
No wonder people these days have little accountability. We live in a time where it's, "what ever feels right". My Bible says that man was created just a little lower than the angels.".
"To be scientifically proven, it has to be observable and no one was around 6,000 years ago. We want students exposed to all theories so they can become critical thinkers."
In many ways this gentleman is correct. I used to believe that the Earth was 6000 years old and created in six days. However an introduction to the theory of evolution and studies in basic geology turned me into a critical thinker which upon reflection showed me that I had been wrong concerning former beliefs. I'm not crtain though that the result concerning critical thinking with me is what the gentleman had in mine. Steve