Many of you have probably seen or at least heard of Ben Stein’s documentary film, Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed. The film tackles allegations of suppressed academic freedom within American universities and attempts to demonstrate that any scientist who dares to question the Darwinian explanation of life on earth is sure to end his or her academic career.
The film doesn’t really argue for intelligent design, as its critics claim, it merely points out that scientific discoveries since the release of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 reveal a growing number of “holes” in the theory. Nonetheless, the Darwinian presupposition remains so firmly entrenched within academia that it is the only accepted starting point in science and so the film exposes how universities have institutionalized its opposition to any alternative theories and true scientific inquiry.
The critics never address the central thesis of the film; they never offer any factual rebuttals, instead they ridicule the premise and any persons who point out that Darwinism is akin to religious dogma whose basis in actual science is diminishing.
The thing which most offended critics and reviewers of Stein’s film was his attempt to link Darwinism to Adolf Hitler and the Nazi’s. In an MSNBC.com review, Arthur Caplan calls the connection Stein draws between Darwin’s theory and the Holocaust “despicable.” Another critic writes, “Claiming that the Holocaust was motivated by ‘social Darwinism’ erases a long, sordid history of European anti-Semitism…. It was this anti-Semitism, inspired by the religious idea that the Jews killed Christ, that informed Hitler's willing executioners…”
Michael Giardinello, writing in the Stony Brook Independent writes, “The film points the finger at evolution as the cause for the holocaust…. There is also not a single mention of Darwin, or his theory, in Hitler's Mein Kampf.”
It is here, in the area of moral philosophy, that the Darwinian paradox is revealed. A paradox is a statement or proposition that contradicts itself. When it comes to Darwin’s evolutionary theory, this contradiction manifests in the area of morality and ethics. On the one hand, modern Darwinians posit that the universe is the result of impersonal, amoral, natural forces while on the other denying this undermines objective moral standards.
Darwin himself rejected the idea of any objective moral basis. He wrote in his autobiography that one “can have for his rule of life, as far as I can see, only to follow those impulses and instincts which are the strongest or which seem to him the best ones.” Challenging the intrinsic value of human beings because they are made in the image of God, Darwin wrote “man in his arrogance thinks himself a great work, worthy of the interposition of a deity. More humble and, I believe, true to consider him created from animals.” Darwin argued the difference between man and animal was quantitative, not qualitative thus blurring the distinction between man and beast.
Nineteenth century Darwinian scientists such as influential ethnologist Friedrich Hellwald insisted that ‘The right of the stronger is a natural law.” Ernst Haeckel (famed for his concocted drawings depicting the human embryonic stages) was the first German scholar to argue that disabled infants should be killed at birth. Haeckel and other Darwinians criticized the Judeo-Christian conceptions of humanity as “anthropocentric” and counter to evolutionary progress.
Cal State professor of history, Richard Weikart points outs in his exhaustive study on evolutionary ethics, “Many leading Darwinists in the late nineteenth century … claimed that in order to foster evolutionary progress, the less-valuable elements of humanity … had to be eliminated.” This sentiment was particularly popular among German academics. Weikart goes on to point out that these Darwinians were not content to wait on “natural selection” because “they feared that Judeo-Christian and humanitarian ethics … would produce biological degeneration, since the weak and sick would be allowed to reproduce.” Continue >>
RSS
Star,
Where exactly have you been all these years? Evolutionary theory has been tested and shown its mertis both in labs and in courts, countless times over being show to valid, and teachable based on scientific merrit. Surely you recongnize all those court cases where the evolutionary theory was challenging and ended up being found correct, yes?
ifeelfine72
There is nothing unreasonable about the rules. If you are so convinced that you have evidence to prove evolution is true then put your money where your mouth is and prove your evidence in a court of law.
believer: Have you looked at the rules to the life science prize? They're completely ridiculous and don't have anything to do with science. Science isn't decided in a courthouse its decided in labratories and in the field.
agentorangex, am I to assume you that you have indeed taken the challenge at lifescienceprize.org since your so confident that scientifically creationism does not stand a chance in either disproving evolution or proving creation?
I am impressed folks, I left the questions on the table for anyone from the opposition to actually explain the evidence on human chromosome 2 and ERV's while i gone over the weekend and not a single person bothered. Guess I shouldn't be too suprised, belever, notw06, quecat and anyone else to take a shot at those two and actually cite the evdience countering them. Cheers.
Believer,
“To erv, agentorangex, along with all your other blog names you've evolved from and to I referred you to several books”
Ummm., huh huh, ‘ERV’ isn’t and wasn’t me, I was away on a vacation, I enjoy our talks, but the weekend is ‘me time’. I wish I could say I was mr/mrs ‘ERV’ as their responses were quite similar to my own, however I can’t take credit for their work.
notw06,
“In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
I am glad to see notw06 is back, and as before back on track with quote mining, way to go Captain Copy N Paste.
“how do you know that they aren't selling you a bill of goods? Why not go to some of these creationists website and read some of their stuff and see for yourself what they say.”
Let’s be clear here Star, the science I refer is generally up to date and current and backed by very well supported empirical facts and testing and ultimately if one like yourself were to educate themselves on the actual intricacies and the details regarding how Radio metric dating works for instance, or how genes can be used to understand timelines and heredity then after researching it becomes clearer and clearer on how fallacious most the claims are that they the creationist websites put forth. This is exemplified in how I gave the examples of human chromosome 2 and ERV’s and how places like AIG make no scientific explanation at all, they simply retort with ‘god made it that way’ and leave it at that. Sorry star, but ‘god made it that way isn’t scientific’ and shouldn’t and can’t be taught as such in schools.
P.s Flagged myself.
Star
I don't see it is my task to tell you God does not exist( I have no idea why you should think that), in fact to say that God does not exist would be an impossible thing to say.
Kind regards
Steve
steveh20
Re:A blind man cannot see the light BUT he can feel the heat of it on his skin so he will have knowledge of the propergation of some form of electromagnectic radiation and therefore be aware that it exists and has source even if he can't view it.
Put the blind man in a room where the temperature remains the same and turn the light on and off. He'll never know that you did anything.
Food for thought:
I know that God exist. I have been redeemed by the shed blood of His Son the Lord Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ has supernaturally changed my life. I have and still do experience Him. You, an unbeliever, will never be able to tell me that God doesn't exist. Hopefully, oneday, God will remove the blinders from your spiritual eyes that you may see that He is real and that you have a need for Him.
flagged myself
grace 2, perhaps a better passage to consider in this matter is Romans 1:20-22, have a great Lord's Day, believer.
Gracee 2
A blind man cannot see the light BUT he can feel the heat of it on his skin so he will have knowledge of the propergation of some form of electromagnectic radiation and therefore be aware that it exists and has source even if he can't view it.
The person who does not see God or Gods may not be blind at all but is vewing reality ,it may be that the person who sees God or Gods is really having their eyes play a trick on them.
Food for thought?
John Marcus Doe
A physically blind man cannot see light. Does that mean it doesn't exist?
A spiritually blind man cannot see that God exists let alone see that he has a need for Him. Does that mean that God does not exist let alone wants to meet the blind man's need?
B.S. Evolution is a lie? You have got to be kidding. Religon is the worst lie of all. Let's all believe that there are unrealistic things floating among us. Let's blame all bad things on a horned creature that supposedly lives beneath the earth. Have you read the bible? Well I have. And for years I have years I have been fooled by its fairytales. Now that I think about it, it;s probably the most sexist, racist, biased, dull literary work there is. And all of those say evolution is a lie, it helps to do a little reading.
One form of child abuse is to raise a child to believe a lie. Evolution is a lie.
Evolutionists have no clue as to what truth is.
Genesis 1:1 - "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth."
"there is curriculum through both Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research designed to be taught at the elementary, secondary, and college level. Many Christian schools as well as homeschoolers use this curriculum already."
That's called child abuse.
"I used to be a six-day creationist."
Me too when I was 6 years old.
believer: For what its worth, I used to be a six-day creationist. I took a look at the facts and found that I couldn't rectify my own fundamentalist worldview with that of what I actually saw and learned.
believer: I'm always willing to look at evidence but every time I go to those sites, I get very little. I just went back to the AIG site and took a look at the article "Creation: Where's the Proof" (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp) - it was the first article I clicked on. And lo and behold, no proof. The article is about not taking the Bible out of a discussion about the facts of creation. Does that seem like sound science to you? It doesn't to me. Like I said, I'm a Christian, I read / study the Bible almost every day but am not going to give up and say "God did it, no more information needed." I believe "God did it, now let's see how He did it." And the evidence for evolution is overwhelming . . . if you are truly an open minded Christian and willing to "test all things" take another run at the facts. Gods blessings on you.
ifeelfine, there is curriculum through both Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research designed to be taught at the elementary, secondary, and college level. Many Christian schools as well as homeschoolers use this curriculum already. It has been available since at least the mid 80s. If you're serious about wanting information that refutes evolution and teaches intelligent design go to answersingenesis.org or instituteforcreationresearch.org and you will find all the information you're looking for. But if you have your mind made up on this issue there is no need for us to bother you or erv with facts that don't agree with your view of evolution. And as I said to erv you have yourself a nice life.
believer: First of all, let me thank you for serving in the military; I appreciate what you've done for our country. And I hope you are having an enjoyable and relaxing Memorial Day weekend.
That aside, you've put forth some of the same strawmen arguments that we always hear and you've said some things that were just downright untrue.
Show me this evidence that says evolution is untrue and that ID might be true? I haven't seen it and I would like to.
At one time or another, all of the facts of evolution were debated and challenged (through peer review) and some facts are still being challenged and debated but the theory of evolution holds true - so far, no facts, let me repeat that, no facts have suggested evolution is untrue. Show me these facts.
As an aside, a high school classroom (or below) isn't the place for this kind of rigorous scientific debate. If ID had a side to present and the facts supported / warranted the possibility of a competing theory so be it but so far, there is no competing theory and the facts don't support the possibility of one . . . mostly just a lot of huffing and puffing from folks that really don't know all that much about biology.
You know, if you want ID "taught along side of evolution so the students can decide" then I guess you need something to teach them and so far there is nothing to teach them that hasn't been proven patently false every time it's been tested.
Sorry about the cut & paste which I don't like to do but Tyson is really good at explaining things.
http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
There may be a limit to what the human mind can figure out about our universe. But how presumptuous it would be for me to claim that if I can't solve a problem, neither can any other person who has ever lived or who will ever be born. Suppose Galileo and Laplace had felt that way? Better yet, what if Newton had not? He might then have solved Laplace's problem a century earlier, making it possible for Laplace to cross the next frontier of ignorance.
Science is a philosophy of discovery. Intelligent design is a philosophy of ignorance. You cannot build a program of discovery on the assumption that nobody is smart enough to figure out the answer to a problem. Once upon a time, people identified the god Neptune as the source of storms at sea. Today we call these storms hurricanes. We know when and where they start. We know what drives them. We know what mitigates their destructive power. And anyone who has studied global warming can tell you what makes them worse. The only people who still call hurricanes "acts of God" are the people who write insurance forms.
To deny or erase the rich, colorful history of scientists and other thinkers who have invoked divinity in their work would be intellectually dishonest. Surely there's an appropriate place for intelligent design to live in the academic landscape. How about the history of religion? How about philosophy or psychology? The one place it doesn't belong is the science classroom.
If you're not swayed by academic arguments, consider the financial consequences. Allow intelligent design into science textbooks, lecture halls, and laboratories, and the cost to the frontier of scientific discovery-the frontier that drives the economies of the future-would be incalculable. I don't want students who could make the next major breakthrough in renewable energy sources or space travel to have been taught that anything they don't understand, and that nobody yet understands, is divinely constructed and therefore beyond their intellectual capacity. The day that happens, Americans will just sit in awe of what we don't understand, while we watch the rest of the world boldly go where no mortal has gone before.
believer, I think you're trying to mix religion and science together. That's not a good idea for many reasons. I'm not very good at explaining these things but I will try.
I will use an example with a little help from Neil DeGrasse Tyson which I will put in quotes. You've heard of Newton? Newton was a theist. Most atheist scientists would agree Newton was extremely brilliant.
"His laws of motion and his universal law of gravitation, conceived in the mid-seventeenth century, account for cosmic phenomena that had eluded philosophers for millennia. Through those laws, one could understand the gravitational attraction of bodies in a system, and thus come to understand orbits."
"Newton's law of gravity enables you to calculate the force of attraction between any two objects. If you introduce a third object, then each one attracts the other two, and the orbits they trace become much harder to compute. Add another object, and another, and another, and soon you have the planets in our solar system. Earth and the Sun pull on each other, but Jupiter also pulls on Earth, Saturn pulls on Earth, Mars pulls on Earth, Jupiter pulls on Saturn, Saturn pulls on Mars, and on and on."
"Newton feared that all this pulling would render the orbits in the solar system unstable. His equations indicated that the planets should long ago have either fallen into the Sun or flown the coop-leaving the Sun, in either case, devoid of planets. Yet the solar system, as well as the larger cosmos, appeared to be the very model of order and durability. So Newton, in his greatest work, the Principia, concludes that God must occasionally step in and make things right."
"A century later, the French astronomer and mathematician Pierre-Simon de Laplace confronted Newton's dilemma of unstable orbits head-on. Rather than view the mysterious stability of the solar system as the unknowable work of God, Laplace declared it a scientific challenge. In his multipart masterpiece, Mécanique Céleste, the first volume of which appeared in 1798, Laplace demonstrates that the solar system is stable over periods of time longer than Newton could predict. To do so, Laplace pioneered a new kind of mathematics called perturbation theory, which enabled him to examine the cumulative effects of many small forces."
What's the point? Newton was brilliant and could have completely explained the orbits of planets if he tried hard enough. But he gave up and invoked God. A century later Laplace solved Newton's problems without the God hypothesis. It's always better to figure out how things really work. Invoking God has never solved any problem.
Highly recommended: http://research.amnh.org/~tyson/PerimeterOfIgnorance.php
erv, so if valid scientific evidence is presented that does not agree with evolution or should suggest the possibility of intelligent design, regardless of the credentials of the researcher or how scientific the process that viewpoint moves from being a valid scientific idea and becomes a religious issue which is forbidden to be expressed in the classroom. The only problem is that it does not violate the establishment clause because it does not promote any one religion over any other religion. What this is is another flimsy attempt to keep evolution from either being challenged or debated for the fear that if evolution as is taught today were seen as only one scientific option and not the only answer it could very well lead to the demise of secular humanism as we know it today.
Hello believer. I've been reading this blog and I did notice somebody named agentorange. That's not me, so please don't blame him for anything I say.
You suggested that religious ideas like intelligent design creationism should be taught in biology classrooms.
There's quite a few problems with that. Legally it won't work because of the establishment clause.
The other problem is competent biology teachers would refuse to tell their students any version of creationism has any value. When creationists on the Dover Pennsylvania school board tried to force biology teachers to read a statement about intelligent design creationism to their students, every single biology teacher refused to read it. One teacher was so mad he quit his job. There was a trial that the creationists lost, costing taxpayers one million dollars. The taxpayers were so mad the creationists were voted out of the school board.
Only science should be taught in science classes. Religious beliefs like intelligent design creationism are not scientific. Religious ideas don't belong in public schools, and they most definitely don't belong in science classrooms. See the quote from Gould in my previous comment to understand why.
And those supporters of intelligent design and creation will leave the classrooms all across America once and for all with their tails between their legs never to be heard from again.
I thought that was supposed to happen at Dover, even in England we have heard of the ID movement being shown for what it is.
cont. You keep minimiziing, discounting, and discarding any scientific ideas that do not support your personal view of evolution and with all do respect your very smart but your not that smart. You brag on the credentials of those who support your point of view and totally disregard the credentials of those people who present a differing viewpoint. These people are academically as credible as those who support your point of view, but then again if your assumptions are correct then why not let them come into the classroom and present and debate with those from the evolution camp who will by your scientific standards eat them for lunch make them look like the uneducated idiots they are and be done with this whole intelligent design and creation garbage once and for all. And those supporters of intelligent design and creation will leave the classrooms all across America once and for all with their tails between their legs never to be heard from again.
To erv, agentorangex, along with all your other blog names you've evolved from and to I referred you to several books and websites that can do a whole lot better at presenting valid scientific data to support intelligent design another excellent book I would recommend in The Case For Creation by Lee Strobel who at one time in his life was as skeptical if not more skeptical and as a lawyer he set out to disprove both God, Christianity, and the Bible, he has written several other books as well about his personal journey. You have pretty much made up your mind that nothing will change it when it comes to your view on evolution and that is your God-given right and I would defend that right to the death as I did for 20 plus years in the military, so why won't you afford others that same right and opportunity?
notw06
Can't believe that I forgot to mention the multiverse, lots of universes all with their own parameters, all with their own fine tunning, but if they all have their own fine tunning then the idea of fine tunning becomes meaningless. Oh how I could kick myself sometimes, its so simple..
Steve
believer: "In the case of evolution vs. intelligent design or creation neither side has ever presented that type of finding but both have discovered what appears to be valid scientific evidence to support their point of view. That being the case then both sides have earned the right to be presented, taught, and debated in the classroom."
I talked about one example of the powerful evidence for evolution. The presence of identical Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) in identical locations in the genome of two or more species. Biologists say the only possible conclusion is these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species. You chose to completely ignore this evidence.
I asked for evidence for creationism and intelligent design creationism. You provided nothing because there is nothing.
Evolution has earned the right to be taught as the most important fact of biology. All versions of creationism have earned nothing.
"Creation science has not entered the curriculum for a reason so simple and so basic that we often forget to mention it: because it is false, and because good teachers understand exactly why it is false. What could be more destructive of that most fragile yet most precious commodity in our entire intellectual heritage -- good teaching -- than a bill forcing honorable teachers to sully their sacred trust by granting equal treatment to a doctrine not only known to be false, but calculated to undermine any general understanding of science as an enterprise?"
Stephen Jay Gould
Where in the quote does Penrose say the universe is finet tuned (indicating a tuner)all I read is him describing an aspect of the universe we live in. If the parmeters where diffrent we would not be here the fact we are is just a coincidence. If Penrose did come out and say that there must be a tuner all it would mean is that whilst he is a brilliant mathmatician his interptetation of those facts is flawed (do you have such a quote by the way).
Kind regards
Steve
Penrose continues,
Even if we were to write a zero on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe -- and we could throw in all the other particles as well for good measure -- we should fall far short of writing down the figure needed. The precision needed to set the universe on its course is to be in no way inferior to all that extraordinary precision that we have already become accustomed to in the superb dynamical equations (Newton's, Maxwell's, Einstein's) which govern the behavior of things from moment to moment.
Roger Penrose, the Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, discovers that the likelihood of the universe having usable energy (low entropy) at the creation is even more astounding,
namely, an accuracy of one part out of ten to the power of ten to the power of 123. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full, in our ordinary denary (power of ten) notation: it would be one followed by ten to the power of 123 successive zeros! (That is a million billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion billion zeros.)
steve--
It would appear that some fairly brilliant-minded men disagree with your muddled argument against "fine tunning".
In his best-selling book, "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking (perhaps the world's most famous cosmologist) refers to the phenomenon as "remarkable."
"The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers (i.e. the constants of physics) seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life". "For example," Hawking writes, "if the electric charge of the electron had been only slightly different, stars would have been unable to burn hydrogen and helium, or else they would not have exploded. It seems clear that there are relatively few ranges of values for the numbers (for the constants) that would allow for development of any form of intelligent life. Most sets of values would give rise to universes that, although they might be very beautiful, would contain no one able to wonder at that beauty."
Hawking then goes on to say that he can appreciate taking this as possible evidence of "a divine purpose in Creation and the choice of the laws of science (by God)" (ibid. p. 125).
The fact that the universe exhibits many features that foster organic life -- such as precisely those physical constants that result in planets and long-lived stars -- also has led some scientists to speculate that some divine influence may be present.
August '97 issue of "Science" (the most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journal in the United States) featured an article entitled "Science and God: A Warming Trend?"
Sir Fred Hoyle:
A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintendent has monkeyed with the physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. I do not believe that any physicist who examined the evidence could fail to draw the inference that the laws of nuclear physics have been deliberately designed with regard to the consequences they produce within stars. Adds Dr. David D. Deutch: If anyone claims not to be surprised by the special features that the universe has, he is hiding his head in the sand. These special features ARE surprising and unlikely.
Scientists and researchers do not live in a vacuum and like every other human being have their own biases and views on various ideas and issues. As hard as they might try these personal biases and views along with their past learning will have an influence on not only their research but the interpretation of the findings of that research as well. This is true in all fields of science and research and the only way that changes is if the results of the research provide complete and total irrefutable evidence for the outcome of the study or experiment that is opposed to their original point of view and even with that the scientist or researcher still has the option to not change their view as well. In the case of evolution vs. intelligent design or creation neither side has ever presented that type of finding but both have discovered what appears to be valid scientific evidence to support their point of view. That being the case then both sides have earned the right to be presented, taught, and debated in the classroom.
Once again agentorangex oh excuse me I mean erv my point is and has always been is why are those in the evolutionist camp so afraid to allow any view point that is supported with valid scientific data that disagrees with evolution to be presented, taught, or debated in the class room. I don't claim to be a scientist or researcher and I'm sure that your far more knowlegable with these issues than I will ever be, but I am intelligent enough to realize that science is not always 100% accurate and that many times there is more than one possibilty to expain certain issues and that is why I am asking why the evolution camp won't allow for true academic freedom when it comes to presenting, teaching, or debating scientific views that either refute or contradict evolution. And your only response has been to present the evolutionist point of view but you never answer the real question. What are you afraid of?
"That is why it is imperative that all people be allowed to be exposed to the fact that there is much valid scientific evidence to show that evolution might not be the only answer and that is why secular humanists are doing all they can to stop that from happening and until recently have been very effective in doing just that."
I'm not stopping you. Let's see your evidence.
You said you like answers in genesis. They claim the earth and the entire universe is 6,000 years old. Please feel free to give us your evidence for a 6,000 year universe. Tell us why thousands of scientists who claim there's more than enough evidence for a 14,000,000,000 year old universe and a 4,500,000,000 year old earth are wrong.
Also, I would be interested in how those ERVs in different species match perfectly and are even in the same exact place in the genome in different species. There's countless examples of this. The biologists say the only possible explanation is these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species.
Certainly you don't think God would insert identical ERVs into the exact same place in the DNA of two or more species just to deceive scientists. That would be an insult to God. By the way, I checked answersingenesis. That was their solution. They insulted God.
So what's your explanation? Do you think you can explain it without insulting God? Or would you just like to ignore the question and hope it goes away?
To avoid answering my question you could flag my comments. Somebody else already did that on another thread. Will that be your solution?
I suggest you should investigate the possibility that thousands of biologists just might know what they're talking about. That's what more than 11,000 clergy did.
Unfortunately the secular humanists have been very effective at keeping opposing views from being presented, taught, or debated with regards to evolution as a result a large majority of individuals have never been exposed to any differing points of view. If you were ask most people they think that only religious fanatics or uneducated people don't believe in evolution, but thanks to organizations such as Answers In Genesis and Institute For Creation Research many people not only Christians are finally seeing there is indeed viable scientific evidence to show that evolution is not the only answer to the existence of life and so on. So I'm not surprised that supposedly 11,000 clergy signed off on this, but then again there were a whole lot of clergy in Germany who initially supported much of Hitler's agenda until they saw him as well as Nazism for what it really was. That is why it is imperative that all people be allowed to be exposed to the fact that there is much valid scientific evidence to show that evolution might not be the only answer and that is why secular humanists are doing all they can to stop that from happening and until recently have been very effective in doing just that.
ERV, as you already know the Bible is not a science book but once again I would challenge you to show us a passage of Scripture when kept in its true and original text conflicts with true science. To this point no one from the evolution camp has answered that question the best they have done is to cite how some have interpreted scripture in a way that they believe conflicts with their evolutionary view of science but no actual scripture passage that does.
"Guess He did not find it relevant to our salvation."
If there was something in the Bible about ERVs I would have been very impressed. The discovery of ERVs and other discoveries have made it possible for biologists to determine evolutionary relationships with 100% accuracy. This is the smoking gun proof for the idea that all life is related. Is there still a God or Creator? I don't care. What I know for sure and what all biologists know for sure is all living species developed from other animals. The only people who deny these facts are religious people. I noticed the more educated religious people completely accept evolution. More than 11,000 clergy signed the letter below, so it's not fair to call evolution an atheistic idea.
"We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth."
There is no fine tunning as such in physics ,I'm taking it you mean certain conditions at the big bang(hate that phase as it was not an explosion) and parameters concerning the four forces that affect our universe. All that has happened is that in this universe they exist such that the universe has the duration, it does so that stars and planets can exist for certain amounts of time. Life can then exist,"looking back" they seem contrived, that is though a trick of the mind, putting patterns / reasons on to events that do not exist. Change the initial conditions, life does not arise, universe still exists but no body to wonder about that......
Steve
hey, agent, or ERV, or whatever--
how does your faith (darwinism) answer to the fine-tuning evident in physics? Where, o where, has your wisdom gone?
grace2, answersingenesis.org
believer, what website did you go to?
erv, I just went to a website that stated that even though there are superficial similarities with regards to chromosome 2, molecurally they are totally different, so I guess the verdict is still out on this one, plus erv is that your real blogging name?
ERVs - how do you know that God doesn't exist?
"You cannot break God's laws any more than you can break the law of gravity and get away with it. In the end, both will see you broken. "
Amen to that now06!
ERVs - are you a biologist?
hello ERV--
Neither does God explain the fine-tuning evident in physics. Guess He did not find it relevant to our salvation. And not all biologists are spiritually blind, dead-in-deception-and-sin atheists. Think. This is a self-evident principle: every effect requires an adequate cause, and nothing can cause itself. Belief in a personal God who designed all things and grounds transcendent moral law is not unreasonable. Atheism is more at odds with sound reason. You cannot break God's laws any more than you can break the law of gravity and get away with it. In the end, both will see you broken.
"spiritually dead children of satan"
So that's what biologists are.
Daniel Paul, does the Bible say anything about identical Endogenous RetroViruses (ERVs) appearing in the exact same place in the genome of two or more species? Biologists say the only possible explanation is these ERVs were inherited from the same ancestor species. What does the Bible say about ERVs?
Also, what does the Bible say about chromosome 2 in humans. Biologists noticed human chromosome 2 matches perfectly two chromosomes in chimpanzees. Biologists say the only possible explanation is there was a fusion of two chromosomes in humans after the split between ancestors of humans and chimps. Biologists say this explains why chimpanzees have one more pair of chromosomes than the human species. Biologists say the perfect match between chromosome 2 in humans and chromosomes 2a & 2b in chimpanzees, is lead-pipe evidence for the idea these two species developed from the same ancient ape species. What does the Bible say about this?
Oh wait. The Bible says nothing about ERVs or chromosomes. The people who wrote the Bible knew absolutely nothing about biology. Perhaps that's why the Bible writers "deny links between species". They didn't know what they were talking about.
What's the religious implications of their ignorance. Does this mean God didn't inspire the people who wrote the Bible, or does it mean God knows nothing about biology?
Wait. I know the answer. Since God is nothing more than a magical sky fairy, perhaps God is just an invention of the ignorant people who wrote the Bible. The Bible must be a bunch of made up fairy tales for gullible children. What do you think?
hey, agent--
You irrationally point at your own faulty worldview and childishly expect all others to accept your conclusions (well, at least those you have adopted from other spiritually dead children of satan). It is not unreasonable to believe in God. Design is evident not only in biology, but also in physics where no naturalistic explanation such as darwinism (your faith) can find argument against the Creator. Even Richard Dawkins admits this. And this fine-tuning argument led to the conversion of Antony Flew. So please, study all evidence, and know your own ignorance, as each man should before God.
Daniel Paul: Where does the Bible deny links between species? I must have missed that in my studies.
Who is flagging star? Cut it out!
agentorangex, sorry it took so long to get back to you. Busy day.
The one thing that is often missed from Genesis is 1:21,24 and the like: "And God created the great sea monsters, and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed after their kind, and every winged ird after its kind" "...Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth after their kind"
The word translated "after their kind" (yep...seems to be one word) means "to portion our; a sort, i.e. species". The missing links are between species. There is no proof between families of species. The Bible never denies changes within species. It does deny links between species.
Now, before you 'youtube' me...I have dial-up out here (the phone company had to run new cables and DSL was just made available about a month ago...give me time) so you'll need to post here! Thanks!
AO - have a good holiday.
Oh, my. AO, still at it. Is this truly all you do? Defend gramma chim-chim, belittle those who won't accept your faith, call yourself an intellectual, but cannot spellcheck. You are a sad little man. Spiritually dead, deceived by your father, the father of all lies. So soon to be twice dead, plucked up by the roots. Hopelessly deluded. And no I won't answer your self serving questions. Please go away from your computer long enough to see that you do not have a life.
You too agentorange.
have a good memorial day too Quecat, Star. Stay safe.
"-(that's right - you are a diversion - an amusement for me)'
Look at me, look at me, I can multi task but when it comes to answering an intellectual questions (ya know, the actualy introspective suttf some of find inlighting) I can't help but to make up excuses as to why I can't find the time! i find you amusing too Quecat, I mean, why wont you even bother to try to answer or explain them? Star has, as have others, and for that I can't but help to at least applaud their geniune effort regardless of their outcomes. You on the other hand give me the impression that you trully don't want to be challenged intellectually and for what? What do you gain by not challenging yourself by not trying? I don't think a person can grow if they refused to challenged themselves, but for you it seems you find sanctuary in this motive. Why? Why not step out of your comfort zone and give her a go? Is Creed more important than actually something that requires deep introscpection? How sad.
agentorange - these people who have critiqued the work of creationists and the Word of God - how do you know that they aren't selling you a bill of goods? Why not go to some of these creationists website and read some of their stuff and see for yourself what they say.
*snap*
“ever read a book?”
Of course I have and do, these vids (the ones I featured earlier) are BASED on books and articles, as most use citations, had you watched you’d know that though. If you reviewed my vids on hominid evolution you’d see the books and articles in which I reference and cite. The others I feature have lectures by Ph D biology teachers, and surely you can see why having a video is easier to understand for the laymans than opposed to a thick technical book.
Now, Quecat, 1+1=10 in base 2.
AO
You obviously live in your own little delusional world where 1+1 does not equal 2 (yeah, yeah - go ahead and throw out some lame cutesy reply about how it actually can equal something else - you know good and well what I'm saying here)
People say they don't care - you believe they have an "agenda" or live in fear or whatever else your little mind can invent so that you can safely dismiss them.
If that's what you require to keep your psychological well-being intact - have at it my friend.
Just don't expect us who are a bit more secure to actually feel slighted by your poor taunts.
I'm sitting here multi-tasking happily -(that's right - you are a diversion - an amusement for me)
I'm monitoring my email - scanning the front pages of several worldwide news outlets - listening to a little Creed - checking some public folders on the system for inbound work tasks - and chatting with coworkers - and from time to time, responding to you.
So you'll just have to forgive me if I dont afford you my time and trouble to watch your videos or engage you on some deep meaningful level.
Have an enjoyable Memorial Day - and try to stay off the computer if you can. It's not good to be so compulsive.
Quecat
Not all books have covers, some are talking.
Steve
star2,
i have some vids up, but so do others. There is a lot of creationist and evollutionist work out there, too much for a single person to critique it all, so your expectations aren't very realisistic. Also, many of those who critique the work of creationists I have link to already, and so in this regard I am citing their work. For instance, Bonobills vid has all his work cited for the viewers to research it for themselves if they are so inclined, it's well put together and straight forward so why not use it as opposed to making my own version? It's not logical to up and create vids or critique material which others have already gone to critique and cite their references.
oO(what is AO's fascination with videos anyway?) ever read a book? - you know, two covers, lots of pages in between, with words on them, maybe a diagram or two?
'I D O N 'T C A R E !!'
Translation: 'I am scared, I don't know how to explain such evidence in a rational manner. Let's please move the topic to something else.' C'mon, open your mind and give her a try.
"Listen, my bookshelves are chock full of tomes that I wasted perfectly good money on, because I was led to believe that they might have something thoughful or insightful to impart"
Riiiiiiight. name me a collection of 5 books of this genre than or some and why you doubt their material, you have so many, so it should be easy.
And you have the gaul to call me close minded.....are you serious man? Aren't you supposed to challenge your beliefs at all times? Naaaaa, why bother right?
agentorange - I am not interested in what other people say , I am interested in what you say. Honestly read what the creationists write and critique their work. You have the ability to do that. Why do you want to rely on someone else's comments and ability? Try to be original for a change.
Hi Agent
Beautiful evening here in England, have a nice barby with a few beers and listerniing to some cool sounds, life is gooooood, hope your okay, you seem to be managing alright, have to go steaks to turn over....
Steve
'You refuse to read let alone critique what the creationists say."
Gee, that's funny, I thought I put up vids earlier in which others have critiqued such creation articles...oh well, here they are... 23 part series and growing, enjoy - www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY
agentorange
You sure have a short term memory. Getting alzheimers in your young age of 27/28?
you know that I have admitted to flagging you a couple of times because of either your profanity or your derogatory comments about me or my God. I have admitted before to flagging Dwen once and I have admitted to flagging Jerry2 aka Howard and all his other aliases because of his derogatory comments towards Christians.
Go ahead and mock God all you want but in the end you are going to lose.
Galatians 6:7 - "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."
AO - I shall repeat.
I D O N 'T C A R E !!
- what part of that don't you understand?
You seem to desperately want someone to engage you on some sort of psuedo-intellectual level.
Listen, my bookshelves are chock full of tomes that I wasted perfectly good money on, because I was led to believe that they might have something thoughful or insightful to impart.
Every now and then I find a gem that was written with an open mind and no agenda to advance and those hold a place of honor on my shelves. The others?, I use them for stepstools when reaching for the good ones.
How about you break away from all your pseudo-science silliness for a bit and try on something much more fascinating? I'm of the mind to recommend V.S. Ramachandran's “Phantoms in the Brain” (no pun intended).
ifeelfine72
When are you going to get out of bed with the atheists/evolutionists? If you never said that you were a Christian I would not have known. Nothing about your point of view reveals Christ in you.
You are the coward agentorange. You refuse to read let alone critique what the creationists say. All you want to do is read the tainted arguments of evolutionists in what they think about the creationists' point of view is and their distorted, taken out of context interpretations of the Word of God.
You can close your eyes all you want to God but in the end He will win.
Why don't any of you question who is flagging me?
I mean heck I posted something earlier and yup, sure enough it was flagged. here it is again though haters.
“This is the portion of today's show where AO will disparage me with some sort of angry tirade about me being close-minded, a hick, ill educated, a 'fundie'”
Actually Quecat, I’ll just call you a coward, as you wont even bother to address the evidence I put forth and in the end being very close minded. Why won’t you even consider be challenged by addressing the opposing view? It’s ok little lion, give it a try. Sorry, but from my view you’re somewhat a hic and ill cultural and ill read which is shown not in how you counter science evidence with other science evidence, but instead k that citing biblical verses somehow logically constitutes as an actual basic for an argument. You’ve effectively said your piece by retorting in biblical quotes….well done.
ifeelfine72, naaaaaaa, what makes you think that, I mean Star has never had reasons to censor or ever admitted to censoring anyone ever.
I have a feeling star is doing some flagging of her own - my post from less than an hour ago was flagged there was nothing offensive or abusive about it.
I don't know who is doing all the flagging across these boards, but it will be taken care of.
The matter has been reported to CP.
These boards do not exist as a vehicle for your own childish pranks.
If you can't handle someone's opinion or the fact that they even have a right to their own opinion - please leave so that the rest of us can have a mature discussion.
ifeelfine72
Why aren't you asking "who is flagging star2"? You don't know so I'll tell you - it is God/x/jerry2.
For your info, I am the one who flagged x because I am tired of him flagging all my posts not only here but on another article.
iffelfine72
When are you going to get out of bed with the atheists/evolutionists? If you never said you were a Christian I would have never suspected it.
Are you really saved? And if you think you are, how do you know?
agentorange
Why should anyone address anything you say or look at any of those vidoes you post when you yourself won't even give the creationists a hearing?
agentorange
Re:What I said was some people (YEC's) who think the bible is a science book take it be one and therefore apply such notions such as a 6000 year old earth/universe. Quecat, Star and others, you can speak up and reaffirm this statement anytime.
I never said that the Word of God is a science book. I said that the science in the Bible is accurate. The Bible got it right long before pagan man ever did.
x - or are you going thru the change of life or something? I mean, come on, you are on a flag campaign - what is it you don't like what I say?
x - are you taking your meds?
agentorange
Re;Quecat, you and your friend believer never are going to take a crack at any of those vids I presented, right? Why not, what are you guys afraid of?
Why should they or anyone else when you refuse to give a hearing to the ideas of creationists? The same could be asked of you, "Why not, what are you guys afraid of?"
let's see here....
The wisdom of the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent, Creator of the Universe versus
the musings of a finite, mortal man who likely has been crawling on the face of the earth for about 40-50 years.
God says the man claims to be wise, but is really a fool.
the man says "I don't care what you think, because I refuse to believe you exist".
Sorry buddy - I'm gonna roll with God.
Tscheuss!
boy- you're a bossy one, huh?
answer to question: Yep!
Rom 1:18 But God shows his anger from heaven against all sinful, wicked people who push the truth away from themselves.
Rom 1:19 For the truth about God is known to them instinctively, God has put this knowledge in their hearts.
Rom 1:20 From the time the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky and all that God made. They can clearly see his invisible qualities-his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse whatsoever for not knowing God.
Rom 1:21 Yes, they knew God, but they wouldn't worship him as God or even give him thanks. And they began to think up foolish ideas of what God was like. The result was that their minds became dark and confused.
Rom 1:22 Claiming to be wise, they became utter fools instead.
Rom 1:25 Instead of believing what they knew was the truth about God, they deliberately chose to believe lies. So they worshiped the things God made but not the Creator himself...
fools - yup!
gee - how many new user names do you create each day?
so clever.
do you really think anybody is buying this?
boy - called that one didn't I?
lol
Ladies and Gentlemen,
This is the portion of today's show where AO will disparage me with some sort of angry tirade about me being close-minded, a hick, ill educated, a 'fundie' or something of the sort in order to dismiss me as possibly being a rational thinking person whose opinions should be given any audience whatsoever.
..count it all joy.
AO -
Direct answer - NO!
I'm not interested - don't care - have better things to do.
See what you don't seem to understand is that your so called proofs are all based on a faulty worldview. So if the basis for their assumptions and conjecture is tainted, why would anyone believe that the results could possibly be valid? And what's more, why would I waste any more of my time listening to these fools?
I've done more than enough study and reading on the various subjects that you seem to make a religion of. Actually, if one can ignore the evolutionary bias of their writings, every now and then you can glean some interesting nugget of truth - even more pleasing is when they turn up evidence that puzzles them owing to their biased worldview, yet the data is completey harmonious with a biblical worldview. Yup - that usually tickles me.
Anyway - long story short.
NO!
Next question.
Quecat, you and your friend believer never are going to take a crack at any of those vids I presented, right? Why not, what are you guys afraid of?
<sigh>
Some people go to incredible lengths to convince themselves of the absence of God, by way of mountains of man-made gibberish.
I was listening to Jack Graham teach a couple days ago and something that he said reminded me of something rather profound that we Christians all tend to forget. In dealing with unbelievers day in and day out, it's becomes easy to forget that it's not really within their power to change. It's the Holy Spirit speaking to men's hearts that produces faith, contrition and opens their eyes. Without that, they are helplessly blind. Being angry or exasperated with them makes about as much sense as chastising the blind man who stumbles headlong into the street. He only deserves your compassion and guidance.
Mat 13:11 He (Jesus) answered and said to them, "Because it has been given to you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been given.
Mat 13:13-15 "Therefore I speak to them in parables, because seeing they do not see, and hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand.
And in them the prophecy of Isaiah is fulfilled, which says:
'Hearing you will hear and shall not understand,
And seeing you will see and not perceive;
Mat 13:15 For the hearts of this people have grown dull.
Their ears are hard of hearing,
And their eyes they have closed,
Lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears,
Lest they should understand with their hearts and turn,
So that I should heal them."'
Grace and peace - Maranatha!
‘so afraid of scientifically substantiated views”
Respectfully, we are not afraid, after all we have the fossils and the genes and other evidence, which back our claims. Heck, if only you’d review those vids I gave days ago it would be quite clear. But it seems you’d rather revel in the gish gallop and subterfuge and avoid responding to them at all. It all comes down to teaching what the evidence supports and the evidence doesn’t support a 6000 year old earth/universe among other things. How many times must I ask you to at least review the vids I linked to and respond to them? Just like it’s not logical to teach astrology along side astronomy, or alchemy alongside chemistry, it’s also not logical to teach ID alongside evolution. Does that analogy sink in?
If ID is so overwhelming scientifically supported as you claim, WHERE are all the scientifically peer reviewed articles on it? Further more, why does the leading advocate Philips openly say that ID can’t even come close to collectively explaining all the data as evolutionary theory can? And no, those websites don’t have peer-reviewed articles, but should you find a key article which you think is strong, by all means offer it up and put it up here so I can critique it and show how it’s flawed.
“And your only response is because the opposing views do not fit your view or definition of true science”
No pal, it’s b/c many of the claims put forth by AIG, ICR and others aren’t even valid. Many, if not all of them do not even adhere to the scientific method, which consequently if you noticed makes such propositions NOT scientific. Case in point. I gave you the example of human chromosome 2 fusion, (ya in this vids links) and then how AIG responded to it, to which I rebutted on how they assert ‘well, god could have just made the chromosomes LOOK that way’. Well, hate to break to you, but ‘god could have just made it that way’ isn’t a falsifiable answer, and as such we can’t and shouldn’t teach it as science. How hard is that to comprehend? If you’d watch those vids, it becomes obvious. It has nothing to do with ‘my personal;’ views of what is and isn’t’ science, what is deemed to be science depends on if it follows the scientific methods. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method
agentorangex, one last time my reason for responding to this article has never been to refute evolution or promote intelligent design it has been to determine why you evolutionist are so afraid of scientifically substantiated views that are opposed to your view that you will not allow them the academic freedom to be taught or debated in the classroom. And your only response is because the opposing views do not fit your view or definition of true science they have no right to be taught or debated in the classroom. Why would I want to read articles htat are all slanted toward proving evolution. The only reason I challenged you to look at the sites as well as the books I suggested was to show you that credible scientists and reseachers support both intelligent design and special creation. I have no desire to change your point of view but I don't understand why the evolution camp won't even allow their view to be either questioned or challenged. It's just sad that your view of science will only tolerate views that do not in any way shape or form question or refute evolution.
believer,
"articles I gave you two websites "
No, I have been to their sites to check on what they say on the matters of ERV's and Human chromosome 2 fusion ( http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes ). However, the answer AIG gives (and he others also) isn't a scientifcally backed answer, it simply just appeals to saying 'well, god made it that way' and leaves it at that, it doesn't even try to explain the details of evidence in a scientific manner. Such an answer of 'god just made it that way' isn't falsifiable and therefore not scientific, which is what I've been saying all along for why I ID isn't science. This is why I kept asking you to please answer/explain those links I gave.
I asked you to please respond to my past links to which I have posted, so far again, nothing. Please respond.
"you are totally close minded to anything ...but let me give you the benifit of the doubt"
Don't give me this self rightous indigent whitenoise, I have offered my evidence in links to you countless times and still I haven't even heard a response from you or others.
agentorangex, my apology with regards to the two websites I gave you after I reread one of your blogs you acknowledged that you did indeed see them so my apology for assuming that you chose to ignore them and I would encourage you to take time and visit those sites.
Answers in Genesis is great, www.answersinGenesis.org give it a try.
agentorangex, now your even contradicting your own view of science as for articles I gave you two websites to go to but apparently you're so focused on being right you missed them so there is no point discussing anything with you because you are totally close minded to anything that disagrees with your point of view and are not even willing to consider the options, but let me give you the benifit of the doubt. Here are 3 books that present a viewpoint other than yours and trust me there are a whole lot more books and studies out there if your willing to go to those two websites, so here are three: Is The Big Bang Biblical by John Morris, The Genesis Flood by Henry Morris, and Refuting Evolution by Jonathan Sarfati.
'MUST reject? "
Correct, how exactly can you accept cosmology and astronomy if they don't collectively support the notion of a 6000 year old earth/universe? How can you accept physics when dating techniques show the earth isn't 6000 years old? How can you accept geology when it shows the earths plates have been moving for billions of years and how volcanoes have been building land masses for billions of years?
‘Can your surmisings possibly allow for fluctuations in time?”
Sure, just show that the speed of light has never been only as a constant and at the same time as it slows this will, if you know anything about physics, affect the decay rates for particles. Oh my what a dilemma! So go ahead show that light speed hasn’t always been a constant in space.
But think about what you’re asking of us Quecat. You want us to accept your holy book b/c it says the earth/universe are young and consequently b/c it doesn’t appear young you opt for the ‘well, god can make it LOOK older than it really is!’ argument. This is logically satisfying to you huh? You believe in a deceptive god then, one that purports to help author a book only to make the creation look the complete opposite? Nice logic.
" scientists used to believe the earth was flat,"
Yup, for a while anyway, till new data collectively showed indeed it was round. Howerver a person from classic greece period, Aritos I think, first measured the earth as being spherical based on distances and shadows, and if you know your history classic greece was before jesus was ever around so you do the math.
Believer,
Aahaah,, you said you accept people Ken Ham, you’re hilarious. Gee, that’s funny I don’t recall ever hearing or reading any scientifically peer reviewed articles from the likes of people from AIG or ICR, oh well, to you they are reputable so that’s all that matters right? I have repeatedly asked you to view and respond to the vids I’ve posted, so far, nothing, nada, zip, zero. Not even a guess, way to go. But since you’re so fond of AIG, why not use their token response to human chromosome 2 fusion, that the ‘designer just made it that way’ as your explanation?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n4/tale-of-two-chromosomes
And no, such an explanation isn’t falsifiable and thus isn’t scientific, but hey I told you earlier ID isn’t scientific. You’ve yet to respond to my links on vids, so here they are again, explain away chap.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
“The best response you've come up with is to say if it does not agree with the evolution camps view of science then it's not science and has no business in the classroom.”
No, I’ve said repeatedly that ID isn’t falsifiable, which is why its not scientific and why it can’t be taught as such. I’ve asked for you to produce the mountains of peer reviewed data which backs its claims and demonstrate it should be taught as science. Still you’ve offered nothing, not a single article, only thing you bother to do is ask me to review 2 sites (AIG and ICR). Put up an article already so I can eviscerate it.
agentorangex, scientists used to believe the earth was flat, so based on your approach of discounting anything that contradicts known science had you been living in that day then am I to assume you would have been opposed to anything that possibly challenged the flat earth theory. Because you assume that since there is sufficient scientific data supporting the old earth theory there is no way the young earth theory is possible. But science and scientists have been wrong before and I am sure that they would be the first to admit that neither they nor science are infallible. So let's let the evidence speak for itself and keep an open mind until all the evidence is presented.
MUST reject? There you go again - trying to tell folks what they can and cannot believe.
How's about trying this on for size, since you're all hyped about wild conjecture?...
I hit the fast forward button on my DVD player and everything appears to move faster - all the previous existing elements are still there and each in proper proportion and relationship to each other - time has just sped up.
Now what if I use the other function button to slow things down? Same thing.
I can watch the first half of a two hour movie in 10 real time minutes and the second half of the movie in 200 real time minutes - but it's all relative to my point of view.
Now suppose my friend walks in while the movie is playing so slowly - he might mistakenly assume that I've been playing the entire movie at the same rate of speed and that I've been watching this thing allllll day, but he'd be wrong.
Can your surmisings possibly allow for fluctuations in time? Might it not be possible that you're watching the 'slow" part of the movie and falsely imposing your tiny viewpoint of cosmological history upon all of cosmological history?
What if - just what if - everything that you're observing now is actually plodding along at a rate greatly reduced from it's previous rate in the near past? You might just come to the conclusion that cosmological history must be measured in the billions of years.
Sweet dreams.
agentorangex, so if data supports your view of science it's science if it doesn't it's not science, yes I listen to Ken Ham, but I also listen to highly credible scientists and researchers such as Henry Morris, John Whitcomb and others associated with organizations such as Answers in Genesis and Institute for Creation Research who support the young earth theory, the intelligent design and special creation and yes even a literal 6 day creation because they have done the research and have the data to support their viewpoint. As I have said before can they prove their views beyond a shadow of a doubt, no, nor can those in the evolution camp either, as for what you said about the Bible you stated in the blog I referred to said the Bible has never been exactly accurate when it comes to science and my challenge was show me a passage from the Bible that when viewed in its true and original context conflicts with true science and the only thing you could cite was the 6000 year old earth view which is taught no where in the Bible. Why didn't I say I support the young earth theory from the beginning, because my issue from the beginning has been academic freedom and why the evolution camp is so adamantly opposed if not afraid to allow the teaching of any other theories that do not agree with their view. The best response you've come up with is to say if it does not agree with the evolution camps view of science then it's not science and has no business in the classroom.
Quecat
What exactly does it matter if it was made in 1 day, 6 days or a 1000 days with respect to the validity fo evolution? I don't see the corelatation. It would see the earth could have been made over a million days and nevertheless evolution could have taken place, so having a 6 day creation or not isn't the issue with relvance to evolution. The issue is wheather the earth/universe is 6000 years young as Star and other YEC's claim it is. Obviously with such a small window of time evolution couldn't have occured at the large scales. In the end if one is to accept such a young earth and universe evolution is hardly only the avenue of knowledge one must reject. They must also reject cosmology, astronomy, physics, geology, paleontology, ....you get the idea. O well, you wouldn't want to mistaken for being modern now would you.
“there is a difference between evolution and evolutionary origin theory”
There is no such thing as ‘evolutionary origin theory’. There is evolution the process, the fact, as seen in the labs as viruses and organisms change in front of our very eyes and there is the ‘evolutionary theory’ which describes the facts of evolution like genetics and fossils and paleontology.
“Will gasoline ever become water on its own?”
To answer that all one need to do is determine if gasoline is alive and can self replicate and thus evolve? So DP, is it? NO, it isn’t so obviously it can’t and won’t ever biologically evolve, it does and can in its chemical composition change over time either naturally or by being burned and this too would be in a sense evolution as its nature is changing over time, but it’s not biologically evolving so be careful not to confuse the two.
Reaffirm what statement?
There are those who demand that one must believe in 6-literal day creationism to truly believe in the Bible and the Christ that the Bible reveals. At the same time there are those that insist that in order to be considered "scientifically enlightened" or modern or whatever you want to call it, that I must reject a literal 6 day creationism and even go so far as to say that I must accept evolution.
I reject both premises.
Man cannot demand anything of me. I most certainly don't answer to him.
it is God that demands and deserves my utmost faith and trust in His Only Son. This is all that I am commanded. All other details are as the Spirit leads. I have no concrete personal opinion on the 6-day creation. The bible says what is says. I don't feel the need the question, analyze, fantasize or any other "ize" about it. It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter if it's 6 24 hour days
It doesn't matter if it's 6 "God" days - whatever that may be
It doesn't matter if it's 6 1000 year long "days"
It doesn't matter if it's 6 gazillion-year long"days"
It doesn't matter.
God says 6 days. Good enough for me.
I'll wait til I get to heaven and ask Him EXACTLY what He meant by that, then.
Although, I suspect I really have more important things on my mind. :)
How's that for a "position statement"?
1st Law "The increase in the internal energy of a system is equal to the amount of energy added by heating the system, minus the amount lost as a result of the work done by the system on its surroundings."
The Bible states that God is all powerful. It also says that by Him all things exist. This being the case God would be the energy that cannot be created nor depleted. He would have always been and be everywhere. Matter came into being by an act of energy. Thus, God created. He created out of Himself as He is the only constant. The state of matter is based on the impact of the energy applied to create it.
Therefore, the Bible and the 1st Law of Thermaldynamics agree.
"The matter was already around eternally! Sounds more religious then scientific,"
READ the 1st law of thermodynamics pal, it's all there.
It is a correct statement that the Bible was never intended to be a science book. First, since we are already having difficulty with the simple truths found in the Bible, I doubt we could understand science from Gods perspective. For example, we drive a car. How many people understand the physical engineering and dynamics of the car they drive? How many would be able to understand it? Most have problems understanding that 55 means 55 and what turn signals are for....
Sill, there is a difference between evolution and evolutionary origin theory. Evolution can be defined as "a process of change in a certain direction: Unfolding". So the plot of a book 'evolves' as you read it. Maturity can be a type of evolution. It can allso be defined as "the action or an instance of forming and giving something off: Emission". So gasoline 'evolves' as it goes through the engine. All the above require outside influance to occur.
Will gasoline ever become water on its own? Would children mature without a higher level of maturity exampled or a lower level rebelled against? The term evolution used only in the context of origin theory is misleading. The Bible itself is an evolving book as it has prophesy.
Most people agree that the parts of the Bible were written by different people over the period of many lifetimes. This being the case...Josh McDowell did some computations. 1 out of every 1 x 10 to the 17th are the odds of any one man fulfilling 8 of the Biblical prophesies of the Old Testement concerning the Massiah. Jesus fulfilled 33 on the day of His death and over 300 in His life time. The Bible is about having a healed relationship with God and not about proving Himself. He is God. We are man. What but arrogance would think He somehow has to prove every detail to us?
Simply put...I take Him at His word. When I have "Love the Lord with all your heart, soul and mind; and love your neighbor as yourself" down pat....
believer,
What I said was some people (YEC's) who think the bible is a science book take it be one and therefore apply such notions such as a 6000 year old earth/universe. Quecat, Star and others, you can speak up and reaffirm this statement anytime.
“No pleas note however that there are highly reputable people in the scientific community who support the young earth theory as well and have done the research to validate that support.”
Like who? Kent ‘jailbird’ Hovind? Or Ken Ham? Let’s just get it out in the open, please explain the vids I’ve featured already.
“Do I personally believe the Bible supports the young earth theory Yes”
Then why didn’t you say so right off the bat? Fine you’re a YEC, so then how do you rationalize this based on how science shows this isn’t the case?
...of course, regardless of the driving force behind my snarky comments - it's undeniable that they are based on valid points.
The matter was already around eternally! Sounds more religious then scientific, but then again evolution is more about religion than science since it takes a whole lot more faith to believe in evolution than it does intelligent design or special creation.
AO,
Sorry - I have to admit. I'm feeling rather ornery today and just enjoy torquing you off.
My bad. Sometimes my carnal man gets the better of me and I act like a stinker.
An excellent new post has come up as we speak talking about creationism being taught in the classroom of schools throughout our nation.
“what caused the "big bang"?”
Don’t know just yet, we do have some evidence for some interesting ideas, but we all know you’re not patient enough to wait for the real answer and will hammer in god anywhere you can.
‘where did the components that collided, exploded, whatever-they-did - where did they come from?”
It’s called matter/energy, read up on the 1st law of thermodynamics, such things don’t require causation in the first place, and they simply are and exist. To ask ‘what caused something which requires no causation in the first place’ is utterly illogical, its like asking what sound does a one handed clap make. If you understood the big bang you’d see it’s the creation of matter, it’s the EXPANSE of matter/energy. The matter was already around eternally, just like the 1st law shows.
“given enough time you can rationalize anything’
No, it simply is that old, by virtue of the evidence. Ever heard of light speed and how its used to judge distances of objects and also we can use it to know the size and age of the universe and the objects in it? Again, please explain my evidence for a change…
Explain these 2 simply genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
jjdiogenes, The Bible does not say anything specific about the age of the earth as I said the Bible is not a science book, what hebasically said was that the Bible isoften times in error when it comes to science and I asked him to show me any thing from the Bible that when kept in its true and original context disagrees with science and he still has not. Do I personally believe the Bible supports the young earth theory Yes, does the Bible specifically declare it, No pleas note however that there are highly reputable people in the scientific community who support the young earth theory as well and have done the research to validate that support. Can they prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt, no, nor can the evolution camp prove the old earth theory beyond a shadow of a doubt either.
I just saw the movie. It sucked. A lot. Not only was its bias clearly vivid, Ben Stein's assertions are substanitally lacking and ridiculous.
believer, agentorangex did show that fundamentalist christians believe the universe is 6000 years old and showed how that isn't true. are you saying the bible doesn't imply the universe is only 6k years old?
Ummm, so then - what caused the "big bang"?
oh wait - i know, i know - totally random chance.
soooo then, where did the components that collided, exploded, whatever-they-did - where did they come from?
oh wait, I know, I know - they popped into existence somewhere in the incredibly ancient past.
um,...one more question.
How?
(hmmm - just can't avoid that unmoved mover thing - can you? Doggone finite human mind! - It's terribly inconvenient that we don't have a clue of our own.)
Like I said given enough time you can rationalize anything, so if we agree with you and your views we're scientific, if we don't we're not. As I said it appears you've got your mind made up so we won't confuse you with facts unless of course the facts line up with your belief system. But in closing you still have not presented anything taught in the Bible that when kept in its true and original context conflicts with true science and you still have not answered my original question why are those in the evolution camp so paranoid of those in the intelligent design or special creation camp and my sense is you will never answer either of those questions.
‘, are you a big bang supporter”
I am, but more importantly I am science supporter.
“our earth fell into place so exactly that if we were to move much closer to the sun we'd be burnt up or if we were to move much further from the sun we'd freeze up that that was just a matter of circumstance.”
It never ‘fell’ anywhere, the earth formed under accretion, like all the planets. And by the variance it could have been off by, you neglect that it could have been from nearly where Venus is almost all the way out to Mars, and still been hospitable to life. That’s actually a fair amount of space (millions of miles) to be off by and for a planet to orbit its proximate star and still host life. You honestly think of all the many 100’s of billions of galaxies, and the 100’s of billions of stars in each of those galaxies and the trillions or planets and moons our life is the only one out there in the some 13.7 billion years the universe has been around? You can’t be that naïve. Oh I know, you’re going to say we just made that ’13.7 billion’ figure up, there’s no evidence for it at all too right?
Explain these 2 simply genetic facts using the ID hypothesis in a scientific manner.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
agentorangex, are you a big bang supporter and if you are you believe that as a result of an explosion involving gases that no one has adequately explained there origin, our earth fell into place so exactly that if we were to move much closer to the sun we'd be burnt up or if we were to move much further from the sun we'd freeze up that that was just a matter of circumstance.
agentorangex, I've not only a read a book more importantly I've read The Book, the Word of God and I already know how life began and I already know I am a special creation of God's not a mistake or accident and did you know that one word that God has never and will never be spoken by Him is the word whoops! but in the evolution camp that seems to be a very popular word when it comes to explaining how mankind evolved to where he is today. We're here simply by circumstance we were neither created on purpose or for a purpose we're just here to exist and it doesn't matter anyways because in a million years or so will be evolved into a better replacement model anyways and you guys call that science if it is it's a pretty pathetic science.
LOL
This joke always makes me smile:
A little girl asked her mother, 'How did the human race appear?'
The mother answered, 'God made Adam and Eve and they had children and so all mankind was made.'
Two days later the girl asked her father the same question. The father answered, 'Many years ago there were monkeys from which the human race evolved.'
The confused girl returned to her mother and said, 'Mom, how is it possible that you told me the human race was created by God, and Dad said they developed from monkeys?'
The mother answered, 'Well, dear, it is very simple. I told you about my side of the family and your father told you about his.'
Essentially the underlying reason for the entire argument is PRIDE; the ORIGINAL original sin.
Man has told himself that if he can find a reasonable (or apparently reasonable) alternative to the concept of God - then that means he doesn't have to answer to anyone but himself (and of course, whatever societal conventions that he sees fit to put in place to control his fellow "free-men ").
But this in itself is a self-defeating self-deception. After all, if there is no designer and you're merely the product of chance evolved from an implausibly long string of happy mutations - where is "human dignity" and where is any meaningful and ultimately lasting purpose to your very existence? Aren't those concepts just imaginary constructs to ease your tortured mind? If you're just a walking clump of cells that embraces the idea of self-awareness merely due to some electrical impulses, it pretty much doesn't matter one way or another that you even exist.
With a worldview like this, it's little wonder that so much of the world wallows in poverty, disease and death. There's no impetus at all for men to help their fellow man - it's just survival of the fittest or at least the ones lucky enough to come into existence in an environment more hospitable to human life.
Hmmm, if that's what floats your boat, I guess in the end, you could be proud about being completely devoid of any inherent nobility.
There is your legacy of evolutionism.
“So if it was not the big bang theory then how did life come into existence?”
Read a book already, good grief read for yourself the BB has nothing to do with biology, formation of life or changes of life.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang
We don’t know exactly ‘how life began’, yet. But if you’ll recall we didn’t know how gravity worked only some few centuries ago, nor did we understand electromagnetism or electricity, nor did we understand particle physics or quantum mechanics until recently. Give it some time; we’ve only been really working on since the 50’s. Even though we don’t know how it started, that doesn’t mean we don’t have evidence for how it looked in the beginning and how it changed later over time.
How a person answers that question will pretty much determine on which side of this discussion they will fall.
“For example if one believes the big bang theory they'll more than likely fall into the evolution camp and if they believe the literal creation theory of the Bible they'll more than likely fall into the intelligent design camp.”
The BB explains the expanding universe ok, and those who espouse ID see some thing in the universe as being the result of ID as well, so in this sense they also accept the BB in principle as it explains the complexity which they seek. So no, only young earth creationists are those who generally don’t accept either the BB or evolution or both and others.
agentorangex, everyone knows that time is the evolutionists greatest ally, any time they find themselves in a jam they just push time back another million to billion years by simply manipulating so-called scientific data to support their move. Needless to say I was inundated with more information on evolution in both high school and college so I really have no need to look at those videos, but let me ask you how many books or videos supporting either intelligent design or creationism have you read, might I suggest a visit to www.AnswersInGenesis.org or www.icr.org and they will provide you with a ton of scientific data that specifically supports creationism.
Obviously - what escapes our evolutionist friend and the reason why he thinks that we're comparing apples to oranges is that while his theory begins at Chapter 2 and then moves forward - the alternative, Creationism, is a holistic approach that begins at the beginning and then moves forward from there.
That's why he can only argue for "boundaries" and refer to anecdotal evidences that appear to show relationships while convincing himself that a broader view of the matter isn't necessary nor relevant to the individual pieces.
oO(can't see the forest for the trees)
agentorangex, the Bible says no where that the world is 6,000 years old that is the belief of some, now most Bible believing Christians do believe in the young earth theory but they believe that based more on scientific information and see the Bible as supporting and validating that theory.
agentorangex, Anyone worth their salt in logical thinking will not and can not seperate how life begins when it comes to discussing the difference between evolution and intelligent design. So if it was not the big bang theory then how did life come into existence? How a person answers that question will pretty much determine on which side of this discussion they will fall. For example if one believes the big bang theory they'll more than likely fall into the evolution camp and if they believe the literal creation theory of the Bible they'll more than likely fall into the intelligent design camp.
“you won't even discuss or allow to be discussed in the classroom a viable and scientifically substantiated alternative to evolution”
Fine, you want it taught, show me all the mountains of peer reviewed articles supporting ID and then you might have something.
“share with us where the Bible has disagreed with or refuted science”
I guess the whole part of how some take the bible literally and infer that the earth and universe are 6000 years old, is that enough? Surely you see how such a claim isn’t scientifically supported. Now, please respond to my past vids regarding genetics and fossils Mr. Gish Gallop.
quecat, a huge AMEN to your statement with starting at chapter 2 among those in the evolution camp, if their so right in their opinion what are they so afraid of?
“(much less, where the puddle came from)”
The puddle of goo as you so eloquently put it would have been native to the planet as organic reactive chemicals.
“See what I mean?”
Yup, you don’t understand science at, you can’t grasp the simple concept of science boundaries and how each realm of science explains only those facts and is only applicable in its own realm. IE, gravity doesn’t’ and can’t explain the origins of life, just like how quantum mechanics can’t explain tectonics plates. Only a complete twit like Ben Stein would wrongfully thing evollution is some all encompassing theory which explains the the origins of life, the origins of the unvierse or the origins of gravity. No science theory works in this manner, science theories have boudaries to what they can explain and to what they are applicable to, even Stien (and you apparently) can't recongnize this very simple fact.
Let’s for arguments sake say good poofed replicating molecules here on earth. Would this then negate those replicating molecules changing over time over the course of 4 billions years? No, it wouldn’t The same goes if replicating molecules were left here from aliens, or came here from panspermia, or if it arose naturally.
The history of the earth shows that all living and extinct life forms weren’t instantly poofed all in the same period of time, only certain animals lived during certain times, more over only multi cellular life existed since 1.2 billion years ago, while only complex life has existed since some 600 million years ago. But by all means Quecat, don’t address the fossil and genetic evidence I mentioned earlier.
agentorangex, and you guys say conservative Christians are close minded and you won't even discuss or allow to be discussed in the classroom a viable and scientifically substantiated alternative to evolution. It is apparent you have made up your mind on this issue so we dare not confuse you with facts. Here is what you said about the Bible and science, the Bible has never been exactly accurate when it comes to science and my challenge to you was to share with us where the Bible has disagreed with or refuted science when the passages cited have not been taken out of there true and original context and to this point you've not taken the challenge. And would you please stop using who won the Civil War as an analogy to this discussion because once again the issue has never been the outcome but the means to the outcome, not did life begin but how did it begin. Plus schools are mandated to not only teach information, but to also teach students how to think how can they be taught that if they only hear one side of the issue in cases where there are viable options that have as much credibility as the option being taught.
See what I mean?
The "I evolved from a puddle of goo" Club can't explain what animated the puddle in the first place (much less, where the puddle came from) - and expect us to believe all the conclusions that they come to about what occurred thereafter, while ignoring the 800 lb gorilla in the room.
Notably worthwhile stories generally start at the beginning. However these folks conveniently ignore the opening paragraphs and skip right to Chapter 2 believing the contents of Chapter 1 to be irrelevant to the tale.
So tell me evolutionist, supposing that God is the unmoved mover - which logically must exist, how does that impact your worldview? or rather how would that rearrange your priorities regarding your musings and how you spend the bulk of your time and effort in this life?
“It's been my experience that evolutionists are incapable of addressing the subject of the origin of life.”
It’s been my experience that generally those who don’t understand science at all confuse the idea of ‘theory’ in science and think it means a hunch or guess. Also profound is how those who lack such science knowledge are equally perplexed by how evolution in their minds is supposed to explain the origins of life, when in fact its never been intended to explain the origins of life, but rather the DIVERSITY of life. Big difference there.
You guys are like in a time paradox where your knowledge on the material never increases and we always go back to the same old wrong straw man arguments. So lets hear em, ‘it’s only a theory’, ‘where’s the missing links’, ‘evolution doesn’t explain life origins’, and on and on and on. Evolutionary theory is a model, which explains the DIVERSITY of life, not the ORIGINS of life; this is why Darwin’s book was ‘origins of SPECIES’ and not origins of life. If you knew anything about the theory which rail over you’d at least know that much. Only when we’ve shown you the fossils and genetic evidence to you prop up the strawman of ‘origins of life’.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
“f you do ask an evolutionist why they won't address the matter of how their theory can stand utterly separate from the origin of life, they put on their bobble-head doll look and respond indignantly saying "I don't know what you're talking about.”
No pal, it’s b/c as I’ve stated endlessly the theory of evolution doesn’t explain life origins, but rather the diversity of life. Just think of the word alone as to what it defines. ‘evolution’ – something changing over time. That ‘something’ in this case would be life, and therefore its not addressing the origins of life. Just like how the theory of gravity doesn’t explain the ORIGINS of gravity, doesn’t mean gravity as a force cant’ be studied and understood, the same goes for life.
Here’s your chance Quecat, explain those vids I gave earlier on fossils and genetic evidence, no more strawmen.
“but what you seem to be advocating is that only oneside of that argument should be presented.”
Yes, absolutely. It’s not logical, not to mention not responsible to ‘teach both sides’ in regards to outcome of the Civil War (or evolution for that matter) if both were equally true or valid based on the evidence we have. We know the South lost b/c of the evidence and historical accounts, and as such teaching the South won is wrong. We shouldn’t teach both sides in respect to this just as we shouldn’t teach both sides with respect with ID and evolution, we should teach whichever best explains the data and facts, and evolution is that theory.
You’re arguing that in classes we should just let the kids decide and teach both sides of everything, so by your logic we should teach both chemistry and alchemy and ‘just let the kids decide’? What a horrid idea huh? Or teach both flat earth and round earth and let the kids decide? Or teach both sides of astrology and astronomy? No, we shouldn’t, it would be irresponsible to do so.
“Institute for Creation Research who have employed people with similar if not identical credentials to those in the evolution camp who have come up with scientific conlusions that highly support ID.”
Ok, lets hear em, go ahead divulge in the details on their great evidence already. I’ve listed some of the evidence for evolution (those vids, which you’ve still not responded to), lets hear some genuine evidence for this ID hypothesis already.
“Plus you seem to be avoiding presenting your "proof" that the Bible refutes science”
Uggh, not. I never declared that the bible refutes science, only that depending upon how one reads the bible (literally vs allegorically for instance) one can find obvious science errors in the bible. Namely the bible asserts subliminally that the earth/universe are a mere 6000 years young and no science evidence backs this up, in fact collectively all the evidence shows both to be far older.
Believer,
'you shared that the big bang theory is not a product of the evolution camp and yet I find it odd that most proponents of evolution adhere to the big bang theory for the way life began.”
Ummm, the Big Bang doesn’t’ describe ‘how life began’ it only explains the expanding of our universe and very little else. It explains WHY celestial objects are speeding up, spreading apart and the rates, but it has nothing to do with the formation of replicating molecules (life) and how it began. The theory of 'how life began' is known as Abiogensis, not the Big Bang Theory.
The BB relates to cosmology and astronomy, not biology. Different realms of science explains different realms of knowledge and collectively they compliment and explain and support eachother and reveal a greater understanding. The reason why the same proponents of evolution accept the big bang is how both are so well supported, though there are each no mutually supported by all members who accept each obviously. Both the BB theory and evolutionary theory are models which explain all the facts and observations which support them.
...and richest of all -
if you do ask an evolutionist why they won't address the matter of how their theory can stand utterly separate from the origin of life, they put on their bobble-head doll look and respond indignantly saying "I don't know what you're talking about. The two subjects are entirely unrelated and they are even different scientific fields of study. Neither subject has any bearing on the other."
It's a willful blindness and one that they hope they can bluff you into buying.
It's been my experience that evolutionists are incapable of addressing the subject of the origin of life. It's an idea that they conveniently ignore while building their house of cards on absolutely no foundation whatsoever.
However, there is yet hope for the hearts and minds of 'some' of the nation's children:
(taken from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24761899/)
" Creationism edges into U.S. high school classes
One in eight U.S. high school biology teachers presents creationism or intelligent design in a positive light in the classroom, a new survey shows, despite a federal court's recent ban against it.
In the end, it is teachers, more than court cases, that determine what is presented in science class, the new research suggests."
Maranatha!
agentorangex, you shared that the big bang theory is not a product of the evolution camp and yet I find it odd that most proponents of evolution adhere to the big bang theory for the way life began. If evolutionists do not believe that then how do they believe life began because the answer to that vital question is at the heart of the evolution vs. intelligent design debate and it pretty much determines on which side of the debate a person falls on. As for me I adhere to The Big BAM! Theory, God said let there be and BAM! there it was.
Jesus Rocks the whole wide world baby!!!
How Great is our God!! Who is like him???
is Love a science? can it be demonstrated? observed? tested? Then used to heal the wounded heart and soul and mind? Build bridges to others lost in darkness and bring peace between peoples? Praying for our enemies and doing good unto them and forgiving, does this bring Peace and Hope and Prosperity? Is it great Wisdom and Scientific? Yes. Love is a very usable thing, diverse in its applications, even to giving ones life for another. Training ones mind to think in terms of Love, thinking of others needs before your own. The Greatest Power, Wisdom and Force is Love.
1John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.
Matthew 22:36 "Teacher," he asked, "which is the greatest commandment in the Law?"
Matthew 22:37 Jesus answered, " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your mind.'
Matthew 22:38 This is the greatest and the most important commandment.
Matthew 22:39 The second most important commandment is like it: 'Love your neighbor as you love yourself.'
Matthew 22:40 The whole Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets depend on these two commandments."
1Corinthians 13:13 Meanwhile these three remain: faith, hope, and love; and the greatest of these is love.
agentorangex, you seem to be saying that those in the ID camp are neither capable of doing the scientific research or interpreting the conclusions of their or others research. Reality is that neither camp has irrefutable, indisputable evidence since both lack the key element of an eyewitness. However, the ID supporters have many highly educated individuals such as the Institute for Creation Research who have employed people with similar if not identical credentials to those in the evolution camp who have come up with scientific conlusions that highly support ID. In college I did a research paper on the Lee/Longstreet Controversy At Gettysburg, based on the research I concluded that Longstreet was primarily responsible for the South's loss, others who had done much the same research concluded that Lee was primarily responsible but both sides agreed that the South lost the Battle of Gettysburg but what you seem to be advocating is that only oneside of that argument should be presented. I am saying that it is apparent that both the evolution camp and the intelligent design camp have done valid scientific research and come to two different conclusions so why not present both. Plus you seem to be avoiding presenting your "proof" that the Bible refutes science when the passages used are not taken out of there true and original context, I look forward to you sharing those with us, thanks.
“so then the big bang theory is not a product of the evolution camp?”
No, it’s not. The big bang is a theory related to cosmology and astronomy, while evolutionary theory applies to biology, genetics, paleontology, geology and some others. Astronomy and biology are two totally different science realms. The word ‘evolution’ generally means ‘changes over time’ and therefore this word can both be applied to how life changes over time and how celestial objects change over time, context IS key. In this sense though you and are evolving right now though. But generally in science when one talks of ‘evolution’ they are referring directly to biological changes over time, which is exactly what evolutionary theory describes.
“let the students decide.”
Good grief, I think you’re deep. Science and what is to be taught as such in classes are battled out in the labs in universities and institutions, not in the 4th grade class room where not a single student has the foggiest idea of what a ‘theory’ even is and what makes it scientific.
If ID wants to be taught alongside evolution as a complementary or competing theory it must go through the same processes all other theories have gone through and earn its way. Make observations, test them, write and publish articles and have them reviewed, and continue to submit articles as past articles are shot down and eviscerated by other scientists, then if their work actually is genuinely supported by collectively a lot of data it will find its way into the books and classrooms. Instead the ID folk don’t want to go this route, they want to directly inject an totally untested and unfounded hypothesis into classrooms.
I told you Behe (an ID advocate) admitted in court that ID would have to be on the same level as astrology for it to be taken as scientific, what more needs to be said? Does it make sense to teach both sides with respect to the holocaust or the civil war and then ‘let the kids decide’? No, it’s irresponsible as kids can’t possibly know any better, it’s basic parenting and how the laws of consent operate under. Does it make sense to teach ‘both sides’ of the civil war, that both the North and the South won and both lost and then ‘let the kids to decide’? No, it’s not very logical now is it. We should teach them that the north won b/c it’s the evidence supports, just like we should teach them evolution as it’s what the evidence supports.
agentorangex, so then the big bang theory is not a product of the evolution camp? I know what an analogy is and using the questioning of the outcome of the Civil War as an analogy for the question of our existence is a bad one since the outcome for both sides is the same. The better use of the Civil War as an analogy in relation to this issue would be in the questioning of why the South lost or why the North won. You keep saying that the intelligent design camp promotes bad science well let the evolution camp prove it and if their side is so sure that their evidence would totally disprove the intelligent design camps evidence why not allow both sides to go head to head with one another and let the students decide. I'll ;ook for your reponses in the morning and hope to see some of your Bible texts that teach bad science even when they are kept in there true and proper context.
"its not instantly poofed here."
Let me elaborate on this, by me saying life isn't instantly poofed here, I am meaning life in its current form, as in all life instantly poofing here. This would be different than say poofing DNA here and it replicating and changing over time.
"Civil War is not applicable to the question of where "
it's called an analogy. No one in there right mind would argue teaching that the South actually won the Civil War, well save for some Southerners perhaps, but still we should teach such an event based on evidence and that evidence shows the North won. Just like how the evidence with regards to life shows that it evolves over time and its not instantly poofed here.
Evolution doesn't explain life origins, but rather diversity of life. Life could have originated here either by 1) naturally, 2) by god poofing, 3 ) aliens engineered it, 4) some yet unknown, and still the life that existed would still change over time (evolve), so the 'how' life got here on earth doesn't negate the process of evolution.
The problem is ID as a hypothesis doesn't even try to explain the origins of life directly either. Rather, it only attempte to argue over gaps of ignorance, IE 'instances of Irreducible Complexity', but as I've already noted those don't hold out too well as over time they've shown not to be irreducible complex anyway.
"so why are those in the evolution camp afraid to allow this?'
I just explained it, are you serious? We teach according to what is well supported according to evidence, tests and facts, not to be simple 'equal for times sake'. If we just wanted to teach both sides on all things then we'd have to teach alchemy alongside chemistry and astrology alongside astronomy? Do you get the picture now, is it starting to sink in? Do you honestly suggest we should teach 'both sides' with respect to chemistry and alchemy too then, b/c that is what 'teaching both sides' equates to.
We don't teach alchemy or astrology and other psuedo sciences as they aren't supported by the data, and this is exactly why we don't want ID to be be taught, it's not supported. If it is, show me al lthe mountans of peer reviewed articles demonstrating it and how it has intrinsic scientific value. You've not answered my questions either, show how ID is falsifiable with respect to the 2 vids I gave. Cheers
agentorangex, your example of the Civil War is not applicable to the question of where life came from because the conclusion in this question is the same for both those in the evolution camp and the intelligent design camp, we exist. The issue is how did we come into existence if you're concerned about "bad science" have both sides present their evidence together, so why are those in the evolution camp afraid to allow this? Plus you still have not answered my challenge to show me bad science from the Bible?
Believer,
No one is afraid in the evolution camp, only concerned that unsupported or bad or non-science will be taught in place of actual science. You should know that in Dover Behe had to openly admit that under his view of ID being considered scientific, so would Astrology. Now I am no great thinker, but when you start comparing ideas like Astrology and equating them as science and are asking (more like pleading) to have such ideas taught in schools, surely you must see the concern there, no? Are you ok with teaching both sides with regards to 'astronomy and astrology' too? Ah, there you see is the clincher, as there is no other side and astrology by most is well known to be like alchemy - compelte bunk and not science.
We care b/c truth matters and with relevance to the truth, the evidence suggests evolutionary theory is what ought to be taught. If it were left not to evidence but to some other criteria we then should and would have to teach both sides of other subjects like the civil war, one with the north winning and one with the south winning and then just for giggles ‘letting the kids decide’, as if they were well educated enough to know the differences.
“being a history major I can say that I would be appalled if I was in a class that only presented
the northern or southern perspective”
No, I am not saying to teach it form both perspectives, but rather to having the teachers teach that in one scenario the north lost as opposed to how the evidence actually shows indeed the north won. This is essentially what ‘teach both sides’ is in regards to ID.
I know, in that situation it sounds absurd and not very logical as we have the evidence to know what transpired, but essentially this is all the ID folk can offer. ‘teach both sides’ is old rhetoric employed by the creationists back before 1987 trial and today it’s the only partially legal way they can teach ID as ID was deemed nothing more than creationism in Dover.
You want some hard questions to answer, explain the fossils I linked pages earlier, and those below. ID as a hypothesis can’t explain them, so why should we use it when it has such little explanatory power?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=De-OkzTUDVA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=x-WAHpC0Ah0
agentorangex, being a history major I can say that I would be appalled if I was in a class that only presented the northern or southern perspective with regards to the Civil War which in fact are two very different perspectives and then I would allow my students to question each side of the presentation and come to their own conclusions so why are those in the evolution camp afraid to do the same thing. The question is not did the Civil War happen but the reasons for the Civil War happening, the question is not do we exist but how we came into existence.
Romans 1:18 God's anger is revealed from heaven against all the sin and evil of the people whose evil ways prevent the truth from being known.
Romans 1:19 God punishes them, because what can be known about God is plain to them, for God himself made it plain.
Romans 1:20 Ever since God created the world, his invisible qualities, both his eternal power and his divine nature, have been clearly seen; they are perceived in the things that God has made. So those people have no excuse at all!
Romans 1:21 They know God, but they do not give him the honor that belongs to him, nor do they thank him. Instead, their thoughts have become complete nonsense, and their empty minds are filled with darkness.
Romans 1:22 They say they are wise, but they are fools;
Romans 1:23 instead of worshiping the immortal God, they worship images made to look like mortals or birds or animals or reptiles.
Romans 1:24 And so God has given those people over to do the filthy things their hearts desire, and they do shameful things with each other.
Romans 1:25 They exchange the truth about God for a lie; they worship and serve what God has created instead of the Creator himself, who is to be praised forever! Amen.
Acts 14:17 But he has always given evidence of his existence by the good things he does: he gives you rain from heaven and crops at the right times; he gives you food and fills your hearts with happiness."
angentorangex, you still haven't answered my question what is the evolution camp so afraid of if intelligent design is nothing more than a bunch of nonsense then why not let those who support it present their evidence and then those in the evolution camp can go ahead and make them look like a bunch of idiots. What are they so afraid of?
Believer,
“no human beings were present when the earth as we know it came into being”
Indeed, no one was around. However, we have evidence which we can use to make tests and deduce what transpired in the past. Sure no one has ever seen an asteroid hit earth or the moon and result in craters, but we can put the 2 together quite easily and deduce what occurred in the past. Same goes for the evidence on formation of planets, stars, changes life undergoes and on and on…
“both have equal validity since both are theoretical conclusions for how life as we know it came in existence.”
No, back it up a bit. Evolutionary theory doesn’t, I repeat, does not explain the origins of life, it only explains the diversity of life. Hypothetically god could have poofed life here and evolution would have transpired none the less.
“So why not allow both sides have equal time and access to present both evidence”
In science we teach what is best supported according to evidence, not simply on what feels correct based on ‘equal time’. It’s not logical to teach both sides on the holocaust or how the Civil War turned out, we should teach according to the facts and evidence we have and in this instance it means teaching evolutionary theory as it’s what is best supported according to evidence and facts. You speak as if ID is an actual verified science theory, but my friend it is not, it’s not even a well tested hypothesis, nor is it falsifiable. Where are the mountains of peer review articles for ID which would at least legitimize it as scientifically sound? =)
Luke 7:35 But wisdom is justified of all her children.
agentorangex, the Bible has not ever been a science book but I would like you to share with the rest of us a passage of Scipture taken in its true context that violated or contradicted true science. I do agree that some have taken various Bible texts and taken them out of their original context to make them say something they don't such as the flat earth camp but that is not the fault of the Scriptures because the passages they used were never intended to convey a scientific fact.
i just love these guys who talk all scientifically about evolution and use big words and fair speechs to prove there points, even talking about what science is. Then they say God isnt science :D , but have they used all this scientific ways and methods of proving things that God isnt science, or Gospel isnt science? NO THEY HAVENT. Not one has ever offered any evidence that God is not science. Following Jesus is completely the most highly valued form of science, what fulfills us and is Morally and Ethically correct, this gives us Values and a clear and clean way of thinking that is just like God's. God gives a completely logical , rational, mature mind that carefully weighs the value of all things according to God's will and heart. Kinda like Sheerlock Holmes, we are detectives seeking wisdom and understanding , using the skills and gifts he gives us in a Morally and Ethically high standard, not selfishly but for the good of all and the Glory of God. Let his name be Praised over all the earth!
No better science than God. Proven over the generations, thousands of years to back it up. God's ways and Wisdom Works! Jesus completely revealed God , so if you see Jesus you see God! The Father is clear to see, and he waits for you, When will you listen?
ifeelfine, since no human beings were present when the earth as we know it came into being in other words the answer for both the supporters of evolution and intelligent design to the question of were you there and did you see it would be a definite no then from a scientific perspective both have equal validity since both are theoretical conclusions for how life as we know it came in existence. So why not allow both sides have equal time and access to present both evidence and allow the students to draw their own conclusions, what are people in the evolution camp so afraid of.
believer,
“so paranoid about the teaching of the THEORY of intelligent design from the same "scientific" perspective that the THEORY”
I would support the teaching of any and everything as science that is well supported and critiqued and follows the scientific method. Sadly, for those who espouse ID as a hypothesis they neglect to see how such a hypothesis isn’t readily falsifiable and falls short in this arena from being really used to produce actual knowledge. Something must be falsifiable for it to be even considered scientific as this is how its determined if it can be shown to be true or false equally. In the case of ID as a hypothesis to explain certain facts, it falls hopelessly short and isn’t able to offer much. IE, with ERV’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion.
In just these 2 examples there is no evidence based conclusion in which a person espousing the ID hypothesis couldn’t retort and say ‘well the designed made it that way’. We can’t show in a falsifiable manner that a designer could or couldn’t have fused only 2 chromosomes, or 3 chromosomes, or 4, 5,6, etc. In any given arrangement, no matter how outrageous, ultimately the ‘designer made it that way’ as a hypothesis makes it utterly impossible to falsify. This is why it's not science. Needless to say, that in such cases they don’t bother to explain the details on HOW the designer fused the chromosomes, and so in the end we are left with an empty answer. And you want to teach this as science?
Daniel Paul,
“God never said things wouldn't change.”
Well I hate to break to you but the bible and all other religious texts for that matter have never been exactly very accurate when it comes to science, so it makes no difference if the author was Allah, Yahweh or Baal.
“Science narrows down from a wide open hypothosis to a theory to fact……As for the 'found' missing links. If they were proof positive it would have elevated evolution from theory to fact.”
Well, not quite. You see in science we use facts to support science theories (aka models) which can produce testable predictions thus reaffirming or negating themselves based on further observed facts and tests. There will never be a time gravitational theory becomes a law, or atomic theory becomes a law, or when cell theory becomes a law you are simply misunderstanding how they are defined in Science.
The process of ‘gravity’ is a fact, as is the process of ‘evolution’, both of which have models, aka ‘theories’ which are used with such facts to describe and make predictions. The fossils are the facts, like how the biological changes we witness in labs with genes are also facts, which along with all the other millions of other facts collectively explain the science theory of evolution. In this sense a theory in science is much stronger than a single fact; the theory/model explains all facts and observations. At least you didn't make the same mistake the other guy did in suggesting there are still missing links out and about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory
Why are those who support the THEORY of evolution so paranoid about the teaching of the THEORY of intelligent design from the same "scientific" perspective that the THEORY of evolution is taught from. You would think that considering how many of highly support academic freedom that they would be some of the biggest supporters for the teaching of the THEORY of intelligent design in the classroom.
agentorangex, while some things change...somethings stay unchanged. This in and of itself disproves the premise of evolution. God never said things wouldn't change. Birds after birds (their own kind) He simply said He created it. He placed divides between certain animal groups.
When God said He created the world...it was a statement not a conclusion. Science narrows down from a wide open hypothosis to a theory to fact. In the case of evolution, the travel is backward. The more you ask questions the less scientifically credible answers you get and the ffield of the unexplained gets wider and wider. God said He created it and to accept of reject the statement. This is the difference between the concept of creation and the theory of evolution.
As for the 'found' missing links. If they were proof positive it would have elevated evolution from theory to fact. I don't see the school books calling it fact. I see it being called theory by the scientific community.
Bruce is correct. A paradox is two sets of fact that seem to cancel each other out but yet both exist. Military Intelegence for example.... :-)
Guess the folks who made Expelled should've remembered following "God's loving laws" and not used John Lennon's song "Imagine" without permission in the movie, or asked for legal permission to do so. Oops!
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Judge_continues_injunction_against_'Expelled'_film
Don't really understand why the producers wanted to use Lennon's famously anti-religion song in their movie, though.
ack! did i forget Solomon? 1Kings 4:29 God gave Solomon unusual wisdom and insight, and knowledge too great to be measured.
God is science itself! all that is made was made by him in his image and by his personality it expresses! His very attributes are there, beauty and Truth and Life and death, birth and dying. Trees bearing seeds in there fruit to make more of the same, animals and fish knowing what to do to bring about children after there own kind! incredible, and this world and solar system and galaxy and all the universes made so perfectly and held to together by his own will! The earth is so MAGNIFICENT IN ITS PERFECTION, how could this come about by mans rebellious imagination? Darwin and his Father couldnt explain it, only make up a line of fables to explain what they observed, denying God is about the reality of what is the forces and materials and energies that make us up and all that is. Nothing could be more perfectly made and planned out then all creation!! God i love you, and you will teach me all i need to know and be there with me and for me to help me. I will bring Glory to your name and i Humbly submit to you to keep the Truth and tell it to all who will hear it, Amen. Let God teach you what is real. And you will never regret it, he gives generously Wisdom and Understanding to all who ask.
James 1:5 But if any of you lack wisdom, you should pray to God, who will give it to you; because God gives generously and graciously to all.
James 1:6 But when you pray, you must believe and not doubt at all. Whoever doubts is like a wave in the sea that is driven and blown about by the wind.
James 1:7 If you are like that, unable to make up your mind and undecided in all you do, you must not think that you will receive anything from the Lord.
Exodus 31:1 The LORD said to Moses,
Exodus 31:2 "I have chosen Bezalel, the son of Uri and grandson of Hur, from the tribe of Judah,
Exodus 31:3 and I have filled him with my power. I have given him understanding, skill, and ability for every kind of artistic work---
this was necessary to build the wilderness Tabernacle and all that was needed to worship the Lord there.
You gotta love it.
excellent article:
http://www.christianpost.com/article/20080521/32468_Indiana_Jones_and_the_Origin_of_Life.htm
ID
Whats wrong with more questions than answers? For me that is part of the excitement of life.
Regards
Steve
“Cosmologists, evolutionists, biologists.”
Evolution IS part of biology, there is no profession of ‘evolutionist’. So you’re saying you have issues then not with only evolution, but all avenues of science which don’t conform to a literal reading of the bible then? See why its not logical to call one who doesn’t read the bible in literalist terms as an ‘evolutionist’ as evolution is hardly the only realm of science a literalist has to address.
“The secular approach leaves us with more questions than answers”
Right, that’s why all the past 200 some years of achievement, progress and advancement stem directly from answers derived from science. Mighty arrogant and ironic of you to suggest science offers nothing of value while you’re using things (Internet, computers, etc.) to make this case.
“Darwin surely would be shocked that the "missing link" or "missing links" are still missing’
I guess you neglected to view those vids I put up earlier on such supposed ‘missing links’, well newsflash they are no longer missing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/03/transitional-fo.html
ID4234: Which creation account the first one in Genesis or the second one?
Gee, I must have struck a nerve. Cosmologists, evolutionists, biologists. The secular approach leaves us with more questions than answers. Darwin surely would be shocked that the "missing link" or "missing links" are still missing. Everywhere I look (Romans 1 and Psalms 19 say as much) I see evidence of purposeful design, not random occurrence. Darwinists have less and less to stand on as time goes by. And more and more they try to shout down the opponents of Darwinism. Thankfully, on this page, there is, at least, a more intelligent approach than just trying to squash the opinions of those of us who believe the Word of God has it exactly right.
KIndest regards also,
ID4234
>> A paradox is a statement or proposition that contradicts itself. <<
This is an inaccurate statement. A paradox is a statement that "seems" to contradict itself, but may nevertheless be true. A statement that contradicts itself is simply an incorrect statement.
Happy to oblige, again.........................
To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree. When it was first said that the sun stood still and the world turned round, the common sense of mankind declared the doctrine false; but the old saying of Vox populi, vox Dei, as every philosopher knows, cannot be trusted in science. Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case; and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself originated; but I may remark that, as some of the lowest organisms in which nerves cannot be detected, are capable of perceiving light, it does not seem impossible that certain sensitive elements in their sarcode should become aggregated and developed into nerves, endowed with this special sensibility.
Hello ID4234
By evolutionists I take it you mean those who accept the theory as an explanation for the bio diversity on this particular planet. The fine tuning of the universe is not really a topic for the biologists, you really need to direct that question to the cosmolgists(I'm certain this was just an oversight).
ne theory as to why out universe is just right for life is the multiverse, or ,there have been previous univereses that where not suitable for life but this one is so it seems unique, now let me be honest these may not be correct but it does put to rest the lie that there are no thoughts or possible answers to this lovely problem.
Kind regards
Steve
"Darwin himself had no answer to the complexity of the eye. In fact he said that evolution could never explain the complexity of the eye."
Uh oh, it's time to quote mine again. Steve, I know you put Darwin's entire quote up about the eye before, here's another chance for you. ID4234, Darwin does explain how the eye could be shown to have evolutionary pathways, but he doesn't cite the examples of them b/c, well he didn't know of them Thankfully today we do, read, watch, learn and enjoy.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/05/ncse-eyeing-id.html
"Evolutionists today refuse to debate the fine tuning of the universe "
That's b/c evolutionary theory doesn't describe details of the universe. evolutionary theory describes biology, not astronomy or cosmology. What's next, you're going to tell us all it's 'just a theory' line too?
Back on the articles topic, I find it ironic how by enlarge that globally those societies and nations who more openly accept evolution, even the Darwinian flavor of it, are far more accepting of social concepts like Universal and Socialized Healthcare which are, after all, antithetical to the sometimes coined ‘Darwinian view’ and natural order of how a society aught to function and operate according to accepting Darwin’s ideas.
According to many of the Christian conservatives, many openly suggest that a society which accepts such notions of evolution will be doomed, however when these societies and their quality healthcare and social welfare is viewed they are counter to how a Darwinian society would function. A truly Darwin society wouldn’t even bother to provide welfare or universal healthcare and yet here in the states those who most openly object to both the social welfare system and universal healthcare are generally the conservatives. Talk about your all time irony.
I recall Jesus being quite outspoken about taking care of and looking after the most worst off and meek among us, you know just like how those universal and socialized healthcare systems employ, and yet here in the states the notion of providing healthcare for the least among us is not acceptable, why? Why is it ok to give $ to a bum on the corner, or give $ in an offering plate, but not ok to have a system which covers all parties involved?
Our healthcare system is akin to that of a Darwinian ran system. Only the rich and more or less well off have access to care, while those on the lower rung are utterly without any access, left to die in streets or slowly over years of neglect. So there is your Darwinian paradox.
I accept the bible as truth. I believe the Ten Commandments were written by the finger of God on tablets of stone and given to Moses. I believe the part about the Sabbath, that says God created everything in 6 days and rested on the 7th. Why does the church need to force the supernatural into submission to the natural? That's why supernatural is called SUPERNATURAL. It is above and beyond the natural. God is above and beyond nature. We should stop forgetting that.
I agree with the former head of the Atomic Energy Commission who said "Evolution is a fairy-tale for adults." It's a weak theory with holes in it. Darwin himself had no answer to the complexity of the eye. In fact he said that evolution could never explain the complexity of the eye. He was right about that at least. Evolutionists today refuse to debate the fine tuning of the universe to allow life because they know their theory can not explain how this came about accidentally, by chance. Thank you, Ben Stein, for exposing the multitude of flaws in this perverse theory.
Book is much more meaty than the programme, I think its right to be open minded about string theory but hold it as a possible solution though things can sometimes change (unravel?) very quickly.
Steve
steveh20, I've not read Greene's books, but I have the 'Elegant Universe' dvd. Not very convincing from what it reveals, too much philosophy and not enough hard tehnical data is revealed from at least this film to suggest string theory is the be all, end all answer TOE. Maybe I just need to read it more over, alas I am more into biology than cosmology or astronomy though.
Yes I've read the books you mentioned and others. The BBC showed a series of programs presented by MK a while ago all about time, very good indeed (I think they where made in association with Nova). If time (no pun intended) is ever on your side try and give Brian Green's The Elegant Universe a go its very good(is that truth or just my perspective?) introduction to string theory via the paths of relativity and quantum theory, the Nova series of the same name was also first class
Regards
Steve
Muggleborn, you mudblood.....
steveh20,
Truth: I can ignite a conversation that has nothing to do with the posted article.
Perspective: It has nothing to do with the posted article.
Truth: I was extremely bored on my current task, on my current project.
Perspective: My current task, on my current project is VERY VERY VERY boring. No, wait. That’s also truth :^)
steveh20
I know you're more into cosmology and astronomy, you ever read Michio Kaku's books? Ever read Hawins' 'universe in a nutshell', interesting reads to me.
Following up on what agent wrote concerning gaps, what about the fossil order within the stratigraphic record ? All it would take to disprove evolution would be for more complex organisms to be found in ealier strata i.e a bunny in the Devonian, its never happened though not in the hundreads of years of fossil hunting. All over the world the same fossils are found in the same strata, always in the same order simple turning to complex. The only time when this may not occur is due to overfolds or thrusts, but we understand these for what they are.
Steve
Muggleborn, when you wrote the statement
"Truth is absolute. It's "perspective" that's relative"
How do you know thats true and is not just your perspective?
Kind regards
Steve
Irenaeus,
“gaps in fossil records;”
Yes, gaps, all over the place, yet still we have fossils like these and many others demonstrating what Darwin initially suggested we should fine, oh the irony!
www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkM3iFn7eLc
www.youtube.com/watch?v=tsZjCokzpJM
“while evidence for mutation and adaptations within a species, no evidence for one species evolving into another;”
Google ‘observed speciation’ already, good grief over 30+ instances there alone.
Truth is absolute. It's "perspective" that's relative.
I do not believe in "God" since no supernatural being exists. It's simply the creation of people's: a remnant of the old days of ignorance. Even if God was to exists, I would not choose to believe in such a tyrannical and hypocritical despot who approaches with the guise of forgivness but would damn his children to eternal agony.
Wow, someone who can't handle the truth is apperently flagging a bunch of posts. What a cowardly, despicible act.
"gaps in fossil records"
So what? Don't you know anything about the molecular evidence? The fossils are not necessary!
"no evidence for one species evolving into another"
That's lying. Are all Christians compulsive liars?
Again, don't you know anything about the molecular evidence? Biologists can determine evolutionary relationships with 100% certainty. Your "no evidence for one species evolving into another" proves you are uneducated and/or dishonest.
Biological evolution, including our close relationship to the other ape species, is the strongest fact of science. Get used to it. Your lying and/or ignorance is not going to change reality.
http://tinyurl.com/3vynwe
We shall therefore be in Darwin commemorative territory this next year or so. To the scientifically literate portion of humanity this will be an occasion to acknowledge with gratitude and respect one of the giants of our understanding, a figure to rank with Newton, Gauss, and Einstein. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection supplied an elegant explanation for the great variety of living things on Earth. No alternative explanation (other than the miraculous) has ever been offered, and a century and a half of inquiry has produced not a single observation that contradicts Darwin’s basic principles. Those principles form the foundation of the life sciences. As the great biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky framed it: ”Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”
Vaho,
“Let's have your holes Mr. Craven, and let's have some evidence for your holes.”
There are holes within the theory of evolution (and no, I am not someone who belongs to a six-day creation, young earth society). While I believe that evolution is plausible, many evolutionist admit that there are holes in the theory; e.g., gaps in fossil records; while evidence for mutation and adaptations within a species, no evidence for one species evolving into another; genome mapping has lead many scientist to the conclusion that the sequencing is analogous to a computer program (i.e., contains information for formation and replication); evolution is plausible once life has started, but how did life start? (i.e., the origin of life is not an evolutionary question), etc.
Vaho, i feelfine,
I completely agree. I became infuriated the more I read this article. Actually, I became quite embarrassed for this journalist too. I am really, really, really waiting for the day an educated, self-proclaimed Christian journalist will not be compelled by his fear-invoking faith, but rather by science, by DIGNITY, and reject the lies, intimidation, and annoyance of anti-evolutionists. Am i saying that evolution is RIGHT; religion is wrong? No! I do not believe that there is an absolute right or wrong when it comes to science. I only believe in progress, yet while science progresses yearly, monthly daily.. the bible stays the same. Then again, am I anti-religion? No! I believe religion is a personal matter, and in NO WAY should the church abuse its tax-free position by laying shame to renowned scientists' years of research world-wide.
When they came for the evolutionists (it never happened), I said nothing.
When they came for the geologists (the Earth is only 6000 years old), I said nothing
When the came for the astronomers ( The solar nebular model is wrong), I said nothing.
When they came for the cosmologists (the universe is not 14 billion years old), I said nothing.
When they came for the particle physicists( the four forces where not joined together once), I said nothing.
When they came for me(sorry, I disagree with you), there was no one left to speak up.
Steve
Flagged myself
Okay let me be honest I find this sort of article deeply offensive to the nth degree, I'm not certain if its the ignorance or the brush it tars me, my friends or for that point millions of Christians( such as my parents) who find evolution a compulsive explanation as to the bio diversity on our planet. One thing I must confess is that I used to tell the same sort of untruths when I was full time in Christain minstry so I can't complain that much!!
The thing I do notice about this article though is that the in putting forward the argument about the law of the jungle etc..this in many ways has no bearing on whether evolution is true. What if the links he makes where true(for the sake of argument) n? would this(unplesent link it is) make evolution untrue, the answer is no!!
What therefore is the point of the article apart for s. to fufill his contractual, so many words a week article. This is lazy journalism.
Steve
S. Michael Craven: "... it merely points out that scientific discoveries since the release of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 reveal a growing number of 'holes' in the theory."
Mr. Craven, this really makes me mad. You have a lot of nerve to spread lies about biological evolution. In the past 150 years the evidence for evolution has become a mountain. All scientific discoveries since Darwin have made evolution stronger. Darwin would be amazed at how powerful the evidence for his natural selection idea is today.
Please believe in any childish nonsense you want, Mr. Craven, but stop being a compulsive liar. When you spread lies about science to defend your childish belief in magic, you make all Christians look bad.
S. Michael Craven,
Are you a biologist?
I didn't think so.
You don't even know what science is. (Hint, scientists don't invoke magic. That's what your religious creation myths are, magic.)
"The film doesn’t really argue for intelligent design, as its critics claim, ..."
How could Expelled argue for Intelligent Design? Intelligent design means magically created. There's no evidence for it.
"... it merely points out that scientific discoveries since the release of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in 1859 reveal a growing number of 'holes' in the theory."
S. Michael Craven, you are a LIAR. What holes? Let's have your holes Mr. Craven, and let's have some evidence for your holes.
You are extremely dishonest Mr. Craven, and you owe thousands of biologists an apology.
Perhaps you think on a Christian website you can spread lies about science and get away with it. Any educated person who read your nonsense knows you're a liar. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Wow, who knows where to even start with this one. First of all, biologists who study evolution (not Darwinists - there is no such thing), have properly rebutted the tenets of the film. Go to http://www.expelledexposed.com/ and check it out. As for it being the starting point, yes you are correct, it is, because its facts speak for themselves - there is no reason to start somewhere else.
As for "holes in the theory," I checked Craven's short biography online and the funny thing is, biologist is nowhere to be found.
Craven said: And yet Darwinists refuse to recognize the connection to Hitler’s “Final Solution?”
And yet, Christians fail to see the connection between Christianity and slavery / racism / Jim Crow in the United States - see, you don't like it and probably don't agree with it, do you?
My pastor literally preached on this yesterday - Science doesn't deal with morality and ethics and the Bible is not a science text book. They both operate in different realms - the Bible deals with the spirit and soul, while science deals with the earthly, natural realm.