Thursday, October 18, 2007

Creationism Debate - I Am PapaGeorgio

BlizzLink Forums > General Interest > Serious Debates > Creationism


PDA

View Full Version : Creationism


Fizban

11-05-2004, 09:37 PM

Our own ghostdude and I were having a heated debate over this. Unfortunately he feels if you change your position due to something on the internet that you're stupid.

So the thing is creationism. Is it logical? Is it the same thing with a different outcome as science? Is it simple lack of logic and blind (normally meaning you haven't heard or understood the opposite side till after 15 or even later) faith?

The farther I get into science, the more I learn (a fudemental difference, religion is believing something because nothing has proved it wrong, whereas science is believing something because it has been proven, and not by faith or personal accounts, to be correct) the less value I put in it; I origanally thought perhaps a happy medium was the correct veiw, maybe god was responsible for the big 'bang'.

As I continue, I find no evidence to support this other then the fact, as humans, we cannot understand the univserse. We're mentally incapable of comprehending something without boundries, the closest we can ever come is a circle, which linearly continues forever. Which is a big score for the creationists because without this ignorance their myths would've been trashed long ago.

So anyways, there's my veiw in a nutshell. I'm not good at starting these things. :p


ghostdude

11-05-2004, 09:41 PM

My position on the matter is that if you change your opinion SOLELY due to something you saw on the internet, you're stupid. I think about my beliefs every time I get into one of these debates, of course, but I don't think that changing your life because of the internet is a good idea. ;)

That said, this is the last time you'll see me here, as I gave up these discussions in forums LONG ago. No one even wants to listen to the other side, so it's no use. And yes, that goes for BOTH sides.


Frozen

11-05-2004, 09:56 PM

Wait.. Is this an actual discussion about Creationsim, or is this a discussion about changing faith based on the intarweb?


Fizban

11-05-2004, 10:25 PM

Yes, it's about creation; notice the title.


Frozen

11-05-2004, 10:26 PM

CREATION, NOTICE THE TITLE.

Yes but the content of both posts says otherwise to me.


Darian_TruBlade

11-06-2004, 12:39 AM

Forenote: Fizban, all caps in a serious discussion forum is rather uncalled for. Just an observation.

I agree with the point that anyone changing a view on something based purely on the internet is foolish, however I disagree with a few other points.

Religion is not the belief in anything because there is no proof against it. There is a difference between religion and faith. The importance of faith is that it is a belief in something with none or next to none (if any) concrete proof for it. Often this is coupled with proof against it, and even a little concrete proof.


Gaidin

11-06-2004, 01:34 AM

Creationism and Science have a love-hate relationship that a lot of people misenterpret I believe. All Creationism as a whole says is that "some God(s) created the Universe". The religions tend to never say how. Example: The most you get from the Bible is "And God said "Let there be Light", and there was light."

Again, creationism just says that somebody created the universe. Scientific knowledge just says how the universe works and such knowledge can be applied to theorize how it was created.

Science has never said anything that had to do with a religion/lack thereof. It has never said there is/is not no god(s). All it says is "this is how this works".


Andwarf

11-08-2004, 03:37 PM

That said, this is the last time you'll see me here, as I gave up these discussions in forums LONG ago. No one even wants to listen to the other side, so it's no use. And yes, that goes for BOTH sides.

Ah, but see, each side enjoys hearing their own side talk, and so, it is educational in that manner.


Seggybop

11-08-2004, 05:58 PM

It's heartening to see that you guys are smart enough not to say anything.


Harbinger

11-09-2004, 03:36 PM

You made a few incorrect statements in the opening post Fiz.

Firstly, true religious faith is knowledge without evidence... look up "a priori," it's similar.

Secondly, science is exactly what you say it isn't: science is belief that hasn't been disproven yet...

So it may be that you've inadvertantly argued for the opposite position... religion is (supposed to be) belief in something because there is strong personal evidence for it, whereas science is belief because that understanding hasn't yet been observed to be false.

Also, I don't like how everyone throws around human shortcomings as a given... just because we don't understand the universe yet doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.


I think you'll have more luck with this if you stop trying to shove God into a box. He won't fit, trust me.

And BTW, changing one's opinion because of hte internet is identical to changing it in real life... sometimes it's stupid and others it's just a good idea.


Trillian

11-09-2004, 04:02 PM

Science is not the formation of theories and hypotheses; it is the act of testing these and the proving of their validity. A test that disproves a theory is just as useful as a test which backs up a theory. That's the difference between science and religion. No one scientist's word is taken as the gospel; even Einstein's theories have been tested and re-tested. The credibility of a scientific theory is determined by the number of times it has been proven "not wrong," and not by emotional convictions.


Harbinger

11-09-2004, 04:13 PM

One can't argue religion in the same way one can argue science... it's more of a hands-on experience. But it's not simply emotional convictions. I just want to point out that just because a truth isn't generically reproducable, doesn't mean that such a thing is baseless or false.

I would say that the most important things I know are things that I can't explain... things you'd have to experience to grasp.


Trillian

11-09-2004, 04:19 PM

I would say that the most important things I know are things that I can't explain... things you'd have to experience to grasp.

I hate to say this, but alot of inexplicable events can be explained through neurochemistry. I'm not saying that they're not important (hey,they're important to me too), just that they can be explained.


Harbinger

11-09-2004, 04:26 PM

Explain away God and still he will be holy.


Trillian

11-09-2004, 04:47 PM

suit yourself.


Raiddx

11-09-2004, 06:34 PM

OKay, first things first:

Regarding Genesis, and the bible's accounts of creation: Please discard any ideas of a religious representation for creation, because it just doesn't exist in the bible.

If you really want to know more about where it came from, check out the mesopotamian(sp?) religion(s) that were around before Judaism developed. Genesis is almost a direct copy of the mesopotamian religion's creation account with a couple minor differances:

The mesopotamians were polytheists, their creation had to do with 6 generations of gods. Conveniently enough, each generation was directly copied into the 6 days of creation that Genesis uses. It's just that instead of being gods to represent the aspects of the world, they were simply spoken into creation by God.

Secondly, in mesopotamian religion humans were created to be slaves to the gods so they could rest. But Judaism knows that calling people slaves is no way to get their support. Instead, they said that God created humans in his image then he rested. This way Hebrews can claim to be God's chosen people.

Moving on to this whole Religion vs Science thing, that's a load of crap that's stuck around from victorian thinking. This little theology war started when Darwin put forward his ideas about evolution. Not because his findings argued with anything in religion, but because the Aristocracy couldn't abide the idea that they were the same race as lowly commoners.

Their whole position in society was based on the idea that they were a superior people to the lower class, and that's why they deserve the better life. Similarly, the idea of a monarchy is based on the belief that the King or Queen is ordained by God and He gave them that position. If you say that all people are the same humans, this position is somewhat compromised.

On to Harb: You have no more understanding about God than the rest of us, so stop preaching as if you do.

Ghostdude and those who agree with him: To totally dismiss it is to dismiss the concept of free sharing of information and ideas.

Edited out the unnecessary discussion.


ghostdude

11-09-2004, 06:41 PM

The internet is a source of information on a scale that's rather unprecedented. To totally dismiss it is to dismiss the concept of free sharing of information and ideas.

My position on the matter is that if you change your opinion SOLELY due to something you saw on the internet, you're stupid. I think about my beliefs every time I get into one of these debates, of course, but I don't think that changing your life because of the internet is a good idea.



K, since you sent me in here man, I'll just address this.

As I said, changing it ONLY because of something you were told on theinternet is a bad idea. And let me clarify that: Changing it based solely on something that happened in a thread like this is a bad idea. Of course having a debate, of any kind, should make you think about it, but to change something as important as this, something that effects most every facet of your life, based off of something a stranger told you over the internet, no matter how logical or correct it may be, is, in my opinion, retarded. Do your OWN research. Look it up FOR YOURSELF. Don't take someone else's word for it. THAT is what I meant. A careful reading of my post would've revealed that.

Edited out the unnecessary bits for this discussion


Raiddx

11-09-2004, 06:43 PM

Yes, but you're targeting the internet when that isn't an internet issue. You shouldn't take one person's word in any format be it television, newspapers, books, articles, reviews and yes, the internet. However, you don't say anything about these other formats. You make your issue with the internet when the internet isn't the problem you claim it to be.


ghostdude

11-09-2004, 06:46 PM

Yes, but you're targeting the internet when that isn't an internet issue. You shouldn't take one person's word in any format be it television, newspapers, books, articles, reviews and yes, the internet. However, you don't say anything about these other formats. You make your issue with the internet when the internet isn't the problem you claim it to be.

If I had known I needed to point out every facet of the arguement, draw a picture, label it, and paste it on the refrigerator, then I would have. But I didn't...so I didn't. ;)

I was using the internet as an example. For something like this, you don't take anyone's word as the sole reason for doing something. Be it via internet, TV, radio, print, in person, or whatever other contingencies you may come up with. That was my point.

*tapes picture to the fridge*


Gaidin

11-09-2004, 08:36 PM

Secondly, science is exactly what you say it isn't: science is belief that hasn't been disproven yet...

Wrong. Science is fact. And the fact is augmented by further research.

It is fact that when an object is as rest, it will stay at rest unless affected by an outside force. It is fact that when an object is in motion, it will stay in motion unless affected by an outside force.

It is fact that the force of an object is proportional to the object's mass and current acceleration.

It is fact that when an object strikes a boundary with a force, the object will feel an equal and opposite force from the boundary.

Science says these things, as well as many others. And you cannot change these things without altering the very reality of our universe.


Harbinger

11-09-2004, 08:59 PM

Now on to Harb: You've long since proven that you have no idea what you're talking about and are full of shit. You like to think you have a better idea of religion and science than everyone but you have no right to dispute someone's ideas of their creator.



Things like that are the total bullshit I'm talking about. You have no more understanding about God than the rest of us, so stop preaching as if you do. I know you have too much ego to think you're anything less than a new-age Jesus, but get off the damn soap box, people are getting tired of hearing about how the world is coming to an end.

Stop claiming to understand the Science paradigm. We already chased you out of one thread with your tail between your legs. I would think for your sake you would have taken the hint and tried to learn the reality of things before you start talking about them again.

So much venom for me Raid. I'm not really going to argue on a point by point basis here, but I disagree with your conclusions about me and about my beliefs. I'd also like to point out that I was not chased out of the thread you're talking about (but I knew you'd think I was at the time...). I had this long post in response to you, but my computer froze and I was disgusted... I was going to come back at a later date (that's when I thought of you thinking I'd run away)... but I never got to it. But now I will, thanks for the reminder.


Knight of Dawn

11-09-2004, 09:05 PM

Finally, reasonable posts.

The biggest problem that I can think of about creationism, and others may find better, is the complete dependance of finding a god. This is impossible to do, whether it is because we cannot comprehend him/her/it or it is because him/her/it does not exist.

In specific context creationism could be proven wrong, given the information about the early earth conditions that we know of. The environment favored the sythesis of organic molecules and it is very possible that RNA developed and natural selection took place. Multiple tests confirm that amino acids would have been produced by the environment, and have also been found on/in asteroids. If we are talking about the creation of the universe, it should be kept to the existing thread.

BTW- Harbinger, when you pray, does god talk back? I think that there should be a thread on this issue.


Gaidin

11-09-2004, 09:09 PM

The biggest problem that I can think of about creationism, and others may find better, is the complete dependance of finding a god. This is impossible to do, whether it is because we cannot comprehend him/her/it or it is because him/her/it does not exist.

Along comes Deism. Creationism does not depend on finding a god(s). There are religions that depend on a god beind heavily involved with the universe, however there are also beliefs that God has nothing to do with the universe he created and 'finding him' does not matter at all.


Knight of Dawn

11-09-2004, 09:13 PM

How would creationism exist without a god? Who would create?


Gaidin

11-09-2004, 09:21 PM

Deism: God creates the universe and leaves it to its own devices.


Knight of Dawn

11-09-2004, 09:30 PM

I think that this applies to the existing thread, because I am talking(typing) about creationism in the context of life on earth. Deism would apply to the creation of, not the management of the universe. Anyway, subscribing to Deism would end the conversation and the point I bring up is supported by facts.

ps- sorry for the long sig


Fizban

11-10-2004, 03:14 AM

You made a few incorrect statements in the opening post Fiz.

Firstly, true religious faith is knowledge without evidence... look up "a priori," it's similar.

Secondly, science is exactly what you say it isn't: science is belief that hasn't been disproven yet...

Science is the belief in whatever HAS been proven based on constants (laws). These constants are things that can be seen in every day life and are easy to identify, the exsistance of mater and energy. From there you logically deduct things.

That is the reason creationism is not in the text book, it's not science, and it's religious (unless your using genesis as your base).

So it may be that you've inadvertantly argued for the opposite position... religion is (supposed to be) belief in something because there is strong personal evidence for it, whereas science is belief because that understanding hasn't yet been observed to be false.

Religion is blind personal belief. Believing it simply because you've grown up with it, or you lack the capability to understand more complicated concepts. Science is because something has been proven correct with current technology.

For example: Dalton's theories.

Atoms(indivisible)= explanation, why do elements always pair up in whole number porportion?: Atoms = uniform ball

Then you have another guy come a long with electricity being shot through a low presure gas system. The electricity always goes from positive to negative, when a paddle wheel is placed in the line of electricty the paddle wheel spins. Discovery of electron: Atoms are divisible!

Then another guy puts some radioactive material in his drawer with a photoplate (accident) on it and discovers X rays (gamma radiation). He wonders why a image is developed onto the photoplate. He then procedes to expeirement by shooting radiation at gold foil (gold leaf 200 atoms thick). He finds that he misses any atom 99.99% of the time. .01% he gets an atom that deflects the radiation or sends it back. Discovery of protons neutrons and electron clouds. Porportionally the distance from one atom to another in a solid mass is the same as 2 1 m diameter balls placed 10 km apart.

Also, I don't like how everyone throws around human shortcomings as a given... just because we don't understand the universe yet doesn't mean it's impossible to do so.


I think you'll have more luck with this if you stop trying to shove God into a box. He won't fit, trust me.

You would know god can't fit in a box? Why? What evidence supports your claim? What I said is that with the current technology and the current model of the universe we cannot understand what the univserse looks like. Think about it, having something with no boundries time, space, or otherwise is pretty hard to make a model of no?

Explain away God and still he will be holy.

Holy is subjective. To you he might.


m1k3y

11-10-2004, 03:26 PM

Science is part-time rationalism and part-time empiricism. As such, it can be proven true a billion times, but a single experiment done that results in error has the chance to prove it wrong. Based on that teetering edge of balance it would be safe to say that generally, science is that which we have not yet proven false - though I think putting it like that is a very pessimistic approach. We, as humans, can understand everything mathematical so long as we have the time to do so. Because I'm not very religiously inclined, I think the entire universe can be understood, though I won't admit to it being through mathematics or science alone (hah, I'm such a hypocrit). But if there is a God, I don't think he can be comprehended. Anyone who thinks they can understand the notion of some supreme being that knows everything and is aware of everything at the same time, is everywhere and is everything, needs to take a step back and re-evaluate exactly how overbearing their confidence is.

Religion is blind personal belief. Believing it simply because you've grown up with it, or you lack the capability to understand more complicated concepts.

That's horrid naivety if I've ever seen it.


Harbinger

11-10-2004, 05:13 PM

To respond to your thing on science Gaidin, I think you're wrong. Science is about what we've observed so far. Newton said "what goes up must come down," which is crap... we figured out that the world was round, so we have to explain why things are attracted to objects regardless of their orientation. We've observed what we call gravity at work and have made some equations that approximate the force, but we don't know (nor do we claim to) what it is or why its there. When we observe more complex things in the future we'll eventually revise our theories on gravity to include the new observations. There is no such thing as science fact... if you'd like, I'll have Steph post more on this -- she has worked on a degree in nuclear physics and did a shitload of science in school... she's a scientist at heart and she will agree with me wholeheartedly. I'm not just making this shit up.

edit:

KoD, I'm probably not the person to ask the question about prayer... I know you don't know me, but my views on God and religion are a little more complex than you probably realize.


Gaidin

11-10-2004, 05:27 PM

Tell me how those things are not fact, thank you.


Rune

11-10-2004, 06:10 PM

I can't remember the name of it, but this all reminds me of, well, whatever it was I'm thinking of.

But basically, it's that... you throw a ball into the air, and what happens next? You don't know. No one does. No one absolutely knows if it will indeed come back down or stay suspended in the air. In the trillions of trillions of times they've been thrown into the air, they've come back down... but that does not establish as a certainity the ball will always come back down. Sure, you make make a guess, a guess that will pretty much always be right... but that's what it is, a guess.

Someday, the ball might not come back down. Science explains what's happened in the observed past, and makes predicitions for what will happen in the future... predictions.

But that doesn't mean I don't have an belief in science, no, I respect science and believe that it's one of the most important tools to understand the world, as long as you use it objectivley.


Gaidin

11-10-2004, 07:53 PM

Someday, the ball might not come back down. Science explains what's happened in the observed past, and makes predicitions for what will happen in the future... predictions.

You're right....someday the ball won't come back down. In fact I can give you the conditions on how that would happen. If you throw the ball up with enough force that it is still moving 'up'(better term is 'away' actually) when it reaches a certain distance between the center of the ball and the center of earth, then the force developed by the gravitic acceleration between the two items(heavenly body and toy ball) is negligible and still shrinking. Thus the ball goes on either forever or until it hits the gravity field of another heavenly body in a direct enough manner that it accelerates towards *that* heavenly body.


Rune

11-11-2004, 01:36 AM

I know what you're saying and I understand why you're saying it.

But is what I'm trying to say, is there's this ever-present degree of uncertainity that is universal and a nature of the world... just because something has happened the same way for billions of years, does not mean with all certainity that it will happen the same way again.

No, I don't think that the ball is going to ever stay suspended in the air, but I do acknowledge that there is an ever-so-slight chance that it will...

Someone with more physics knowledge than me perhaps knows the name of the theory/idea/what-not?


Knight of Dawn

11-12-2004, 02:22 PM

That's very similar to Maxwell's Demon. There are situations that are possible, but not very likely. For instance, all the air particles are moving around randomly in a room, but because of this, there is a chance that all of the air particles could move to one side, leaving a vaccum. The original application of Maxwell's demon was for breaking the second law of thermodynamics by allowing single gas molecules through a small door in a seperated container. By only allowing the faster molecules through to one side and the relativly slower particles on the other, the demon would cause heat to flow from a cooler body to a hotter one. I don't think that the ball toss is an appropriate example of this concept.

What does this have to do with Creationism? The possibility of a ball falling does very little to prove or disprove it.


Rune

11-12-2004, 06:38 PM

I was trying to explain the nature of "fact". Fact is something that has happened, all else are possibilites for what will happen...


Ancalagon_The_Black

11-13-2004, 12:06 AM

Regarding Genesis, and the bible's accounts of creation: Please discard any ideas of a religious representation for creation, because it just doesn't exist in the bible.

If you really want to know more about where it came from, check out the mesopotamian(sp?) religion(s) that were around before Judaism developed. Genesis is almost a direct copy of the mesopotamian religion's creation account with a couple minor differances:

The mesopotamians were polytheists, their creation had to do with 6 generations of gods. Conveniently enough, each generation was directly copied into the 6 days of creation that Genesis uses. It's just that instead of being gods to represent the aspects of the world, they were simply spoken into creation by God.

Secondly, in mesopotamian religion humans were created to be slaves to the gods so they could rest. But Judaism knows that calling people slaves is no way to get their support. Instead, they said that God created humans in his image then he rested. This way Hebrews can claim to be God's chosen people.

Well...maybe. Things like genesis can be interpreted many ways. Discarding all religious representation in scripture seems to be a bit closed minded, in my opinion.

This is how I, and many others, see it. The Creation took place in seven days to represent the seven days of the week. Now in hebrew numerology, seven is reguarded as the "perfect" number, and that's probably why. Now man was made on the sixth day, and on the seventh God "rested". Why does God rest, you ask? Well I think its supposed to reflect the Jewish Sabbath (which is Saturday, the seventh day of the week), on which all jews are supposed to rest. Thus this aspect of genesis could be interpreted to represent a complete and organized way in which God created the universe, with the seventh day of creation paralleling the Jewish day of rest.

Now anyways, as for Creationism, I dislike all the literal interpretation nonsense. I don't believe that the earth was made in six days, and i do, in fact, believe in dinosaurs (*gasp*). You laugh, but there are people out there who dont. I've heard people say things like the dinosaurs somehow being the result of demonic gene-splicing. Absurd, of course.

But science, on the other hand, has done only a little bit by means of explaining the universe, and even this is not entirely true. Science can say how the universe works, but it cannot explain why it does.


Trillian

11-13-2004, 12:23 AM

But science, on the other hand, has done only a little bit by means of explaining the universe, and even this is not entirely true. Science can say how the universe works, but it cannot explain why it does.

Oh dear. I dont' even know where to begin with this one. And how exactly does the bible go about explaining the workings of the universe in an feasable manner? It doesn't. What's written in the bible is blindly followed and taken as the truth, because there is no proof.

As for science not explaining the universe? There's a lot that's not been discovered yet, and unlike in religion, one person is not omniscient and omnipotent, so we mere mortals are stuck doing all the legwork in the research department. Eventually, many years and billions of dollars in the future, humans will probably figure out how every nuance of the universe functions. Until then, we'll have to be satisfied with not knowing, and I for one am in favour of fixing the problems here on earth before any further space explorations are undertaken.


m1k3y

11-13-2004, 01:39 AM

I wouldn't stick my neck out so far as to say we'll figure every nuance. I don't, for instance, believe we'll ever find out why objects exhert gravitational pulls on all other objects. Yes, we know the formula and we know the force is there, but we will never know why, not mathematically or rationally, anyways.

I'd hate to think of science as merely a way of explaining how the universe works. I'd rather see it as a means to which we further ourselves technologically instead of just to figure out why things work. Sure, why is a great question, but how is what gets things done.


AyashiKaibutsu

11-19-2004, 09:40 PM

There are many principlies and theories that show we will never have omnipotence. Heseinbergs uncertainity principle, Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, etc. The idea that science as a grounds for human knowledge hasn't been acceptable for over a hundred years. Religon is even worse though, that hasn't been the ground for knowledge for over four hundred years. Without a ground, you can never fully prove something either because eventually it will have to refer to itself. So all this debate is useless. I guess the main thing you should look at is science yields steps (possible foward possible backwards); where religion simple leaves you standing still as far as knowledge goes.

Young earth (worst subset of creationists imo) believers are stuck sniping at scientists theories from the outside and trying to make them fit their own ideas. No one studies the bible and comes up with solid scientific proof (what most consider solid anyway).


Harbinger

11-20-2004, 10:37 AM

I'd beg to differ in that religion leaves one standing still. You may be right if you qualify the statement with "dogmatic." Dogmatic religion leaves one standing still.

However, just for the record, I think religion is a much better way to find truth than science. It's my feeling that major religious "truths" will be verified by science in time (it's beginning to happen already, I think the trend will continue). Science is more detailed, but I think religion captures the bigger picture more quickly... but only if you're a philosopher, and not simply a follower.


Trillian

11-21-2004, 11:36 PM

However, just for the record, I think religion is a much better way to find truth than science.

And how does that work? Science is the systematic proving of facts. Science is about the truth and only the truth. How can religion capture the "truth" if there is no method of proving that the proposed theory even holds water.


boggy b

11-22-2004, 06:57 PM

The fundamental problem with both creationism and a 'scientific' start to the universe is that both require a significant leap of faith.

Creationism requires to believe that there is a higher being that created everything.

The 'scientific' explanation requires you to believe that everything either created itself or was not created, but simply has always existed.


Fizban

11-22-2004, 08:06 PM

Due to the fact we have a linear thinking and we're brought up that way, few people can understand the scientific 'beginning'. (simmilar to the reason people will put their complete faith in creationism, most have a boggled combination)

Creationism requires you to belive that a higher being exsisted to create the time line (which conflicts with the fact, who made the higher being?)

Science requires you to believe in the 6 types of (known) energy. Though it is known that the energy has not always exsisted and a simpler form of division exsists (molecular, atomic, sub-atomic, nuclear, sub nuclear, etc).

Gravity, Heat, Light, Magnitism, Matter, and Electricity; gravity & matter being the only ones (and the most complicated to understand, for all other energy may be based upon these two) we don't understand yet, which means that they may hold the answers we seek.

For the record, Technology isn't science. Science is for discovery, technology is applying scientific discovery (or any for that matter) to make life better/worse.


m1k3y

11-22-2004, 08:26 PM

And how does that work? Science is the systematic proving of facts. Science is about the truth and only the truth. How can religion capture the "truth" if there is no method of proving that the proposed theory even holds water.

Perhaps Harb is coming from an individual sense. I'm making a big assumption in thinking he's thinking this, but at least it's another idea.

There's subjective truth and objective truth. As a society governed by law and fact we've come to appreciate objective truth and shun subjective truths, but nobody can take an objective truth about their individuality - there are too many factors, most dealing with the fact that we're all unique and have our own thought processes, to call it objective. Which is why when it comes to that truth most important - the truth we teach ourselves to accept, should be subjective - especially if we're religious. Maybe believing in God won't answer the scientific concepts of the universe, but asking and answering the question of "Do I believe in God / Creationism?" allows us to be more at ease and puts us on solid, concrete ground, rather than the middle of the teeter totter.


petesamora

11-23-2004, 08:49 AM

I am going to try and not be sarcastic here, but it's early in the morning so if I come off as snippy...I apologize in advance.

That said, this thread is cracking me up.

First, a little about me. My undegraduate degree is in general science (pre med).

The first thing they teach you in any science class is that science is not about facts.

Example: In the 15th century it was a scientific fact that the world was flat.
In the 1800s it was a scientific fact that the atom was the smallest indivisible object.

Science is based on theories, and the definition of a scientific theory is something that has never been disproved.

So, just to let you all know (the "scientists" who are arguing here), science is not, never has been, and never will be about solid, unarguable, unchangable "facts".


Fizban

11-23-2004, 09:56 AM

We never said that, science is fact based on the current technology to prove that fact. Theories are different then laws. Theories illistrate natural occurances and why they may happen, anyone with a good idea of the basic laws can come up with such theories.

In dalton's time nothing exsisted to prove that the atom was made up of different particles, he was trying to explain why compounds always arrange in whole number ratios.

Then the cathode ray was invented and you discovered electrons; simmilarly radiation became availible to anyone with some money. The nuclear core and electron cloud were discovered, followed by the proton and the neutron. Then followed by even simmpler particles.

I'm sorry, but if you don't think we know that then you're dumb. We've said that so many times.

Though science's purpose is to find facts and truths, whereas religion (and creationism) requires blind faith and super natural belief.


God

12-03-2004, 12:03 PM

[Disclaimer: Questioning is good, but some may not want to wish to know what is in this essay. I am not responsible for you questioning your beliefs. I repeat questioning is good; at the least I hope to get you to take a second look at your belief structure. In the end I also hope you’ll agree that I.D or Creationism does not belong in science class anymore then German Strong Verbs belong in a French Class.]


When pasting it into blizzlink, it loses it's formatting, so I didn't post the whole thing; if you want the formatting for easier reading, scroll to the bottem and download the .doc file.

Introduction
This essay is an attempt to clarify the ongoing public debates over Creation Science, disputes frequently (or even characteristically) notable for the logical confusion, arguing at cross purposes, and generally shoddy thinking (often laced with vitriol) which they seem to encourage from participants in all camps. Much of this confusion undoubtedly stems from deliberate obfuscation, rhetorical skullduggery, and chop logic which partisans of all views use to advance their opinions over issues in which a great deal more than the immediate claims are involved. But much of the confusion emerges also from the endemic imprecision in the terminology and a genuine failure to understand some basic principles of reasonable argument, especially scientific argument.
The central debate itself is frequently misrepresented as a conflict about whether Darwin's account of evolution or the Biblical account of creation is true—a question which is impossible to answer once and for all, depending, as it does, on the criteria we establish for recognizing truth. In fact, however, the usual forum in which the argument takes place concerns itself with a much more specific question with immediate social consequences: Should Creation Science be taught in the science classes of our schools as a regular part of the science curriculum (given, as it were, equal time with Darwinian theories)?
This essay focuses upon the latter question and proposes the following answer: No, Creationism or Creation Science should not be taught in the science curriculum, not because it isn't true but because it isn't science. This answer, one should note, leaves open the question of whether or not the Biblical account of creation should be taught elsewhere in the school curriculum.
In the process of outlining an argument for the above answer, this paper hopes to establish, as I say, some clarity, so that those who do not agree with the conclusions will at least take away from the paper a clearer understanding of the problem and of some of the ways in which debates on this issue are routinely sabotaged.

There we go. No offense to you creationists.


Knight of Dawn

12-03-2004, 04:56 PM

Good work, "some cool website". I'm glad for the reference to the Theory of Gravity at the end, considering that Evolution has more evidence and is less accepted. Too bad this thread was started after the school accepted Intelligent Design, then we would have had more to talk about earlier.

BTW- whats with petesamoria? Science is about claims based off of evidence, they are not disproven with metaphysics.


PapaGeorgio

03-15-2005, 11:51 PM

I like what Trillian said:Science is not the formation of theories and hypotheses; it is the act of testing these and the proving of their validity. A test that disproves a theory is just as useful as a test which backs up a theory. That's the difference between science and religion. No one scientist's word is taken as the gospel; even Einstein's theories have been tested and re-tested. The credibility of a scientific theory is determined by the number of times it has been proven "not wrong," and not by emotional convictions.I am glad someone here see’s evolution as un-scientific."Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory… but a metaphysical research programme." Karl Popper, Unended Quest (Glasgow: Fontana, Collins. 1976), p.151.

Professor Popper is severely critical of attempts to turn evolution theory into scientific fact. "There can never be a law of evolution…. The idea of a law which determines the direction and character of evolution is a typical 19th century mistake arising out of the general tendency to ascribe to the natural law the functions traditionally ascribed to God." Karl Popper, Conjectures and Refutation (London: Routledge & Keegan Paul, 1972), p.340.

“Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion — a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality [a worldview in other words]. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint — and Mr. [sic] Gish is but one of many to make it — the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today…. Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity.” Michael Ruse, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,” National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.


Fizban

03-16-2005, 12:28 AM

Darwinism is not scientific, it is a religion. Evolution is scientific and it has been proven 'not wrong' by every experiment that tries to disprove it or prove it. Example = HIV virus, the fastest evolving organism (if you call virus's living things) known to man. The basic HIV virus is easy to kill with medicine, but that's not our problem, the problem is that almost as soon as a new medicine is introduced to the body, the HIV virus hijacks another cell and changes it's genetic code, becoming immune to the medicine.

You're making a mistake by lumping darwinism and evolution together. They're not.

www.2ndlaw.com for the real information about evolution and the reasons why evolution is most likely life creation theory to date.

You're a dipshit. At least go through and try to make sure there isn't a strong argument against something you're going to spout as the truth, or find a way to disprove that.


PapaGeorgio

03-16-2005, 01:27 AM

Wow,

A “dipshit”!

That’s a great way to welcome a person on his first post. I can tell you are going to be the guy who just posts links and makes ad-homonym attacks. Nice. At least I don’t have to wait for a couple of strains to figure out who that guy is, you just stood up and said, “Oohhh! Oohhh! Mr. Cater, Mr. Cater”

I do not know how a virus that takes over a cell, using that cell to produce more copies of itself from an already existing program in the virus, bursting that cell, and doing it again proves evolution as a truth? That’s as silly as saying that antibiotics do not work because whatever they are made to conquer “evolves”?

At any rate, maybe I should just post a link ( http://www.reviewevolution.com/ ) and call you a "dumb-ass". But naaahh, I’m above doing things like that (he, he).


DF

03-16-2005, 01:52 AM

Lots of BBcode and blah blah.
Protip: Lurk more. Bumping 4 month old topics no one is interested in is bad form, dispite how vehement you might be about the subject.


PapaGeorgio

03-16-2005, 06:20 AM

Dif,

You said:Bumping 4 month old topics no one is interested in is bad form. (Emphasis added)This is much better, and in better form, than “dipshit”! Although, where in the Blizzard rules does it say that an older topic cannot be commented on? I guess I have to get use to these unwritten rules.


DF

03-16-2005, 06:42 AM

Hence my suggestion to lurk more and get to know the place better. Generally, if people aren't commenting on a thread anymore, it's considered dead.

If you still want a debate, I'm sure one or more of the local idiots (one of whom you've met already) would certainly oblige you, but for the most part, a lot of the arguements in this thread have become rather stale.


Harbinger

03-16-2005, 11:07 AM

Welcome to the board Sean... I warned you 8)

Guys, please be nice. Esspecially you Fiz, you're on thin ice as it is.

For those of you old enough to remember, our new friend is actually Infoceptor SD vet SeanG, who is very informed and argues very well. In that light I'd recommend not calling him a dipshit, and bearing in mind that even if you disagree with him (which neither I nor he minds), his positions are very well researched, so they may be worth thinking about.

Aside from Sean coming to the board and being respectable in and of himself, it's unacceptable to treat anyone that way on the serious discussion forum, so shape up.


Fizban

03-16-2005, 07:10 PM

I wouldn't have called you a dipshit if you would've offered an argument. Darwinism is not evolution; you're making the mistake of lumping them together and thus your points are moot. If you'd have offered some argument or a point, then sure resurrecting an old topic would be feasible but you didn't. Thus my opinion still stands.

If you did try and offer an argument I'm not seeing it so perhaps you should outline it.


Kaigun

03-16-2005, 07:21 PM

You lump macro and micro-evolution together and say that macro-evolution is proven because micro-evolution is proven.

So your opinion doesn't stand.


Fizban

03-16-2005, 07:44 PM

Tell me why micro and macro evolution can't be lumped together?


Kaigun

03-16-2005, 07:54 PM

I never said they couldn't be. You've done it, so clearly they can be lumped together, just as Darwinism and evolution can be lumped together if the poster so desires. But if you can accept that Darwinism and evolution are separate, surely you should be capable of separating macro-evolution from micro-evolution. Its the next logical step.


Fizban

03-16-2005, 08:12 PM

Compelling really.

I don't see your point.


Fizban

03-16-2005, 09:04 PM

Or because you're trying to make a connection that's not there. Micro and macro evolution are the same thing because they are evolution, it's like grouping light with radiowaves. Darwinism and evolution are very different, it's already been outlined in this argument by other people, so I'm not going to repost how.


Pangloss

03-16-2005, 10:57 PM

If you guys keep this up you'll get a temp ban.


Kaigun

03-16-2005, 11:47 PM

WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MACROEVOLUTION AND MICROEVOLUTION? (http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-b/btg-094b.htm)
There is much misinformation about these two words, and yet, understanding them is perhaps the crucial prerequisite for understanding the creation/evolution issue.

Macroevolution refers to major evolutionary changes over time, the origin of new types of organisms from previously existing, but different, ancestral types. Examples of this would be fish descending from an invertebrate animal, or whales descending from a land mammal. The evolutionary concept demands these changes.

Microevolution refers to varieties within a given type. Change happens within a group, but the descendant is clearly of the same type as the ancestor. This might better be called variation, or adaptation, but the changes are "horizontal" in effect, not "vertical." Such changes might be accomplished by "natural selection," in which a trait within the present variety is selected as the best for a given set of conditions, or accomplished by "artificial selection," such as when dog breeders produce a new breed of dog.

The small or microevolutionary changes occur by recombining existing genetic material within the group. As Gregor Mendel observed with his breeding studies on peas in the mid 1800's, there are natural limits to genetic change. A population of organisms can vary only so much. What causes macroevolutionary change?

Genetic mutations produce new genetic material, but do these lead to macroevolution? No truly useful mutations have ever been observed. The one most cited is the disease sickle-cell anemia, which provides an enhanced resistance to malaria. How could the occasionally deadly disease of SSA ever produce big-scale change?

Evolutionists assume that the small, horizontal microevolutionary changes (which are observed) lead to large, vertical macroevolutionary changes (which are never observed). This philosophical leap of faith lies at the eve of evolution thinking.

A review of any biology textbook will include a discussion of microevolutionary changes. This list will include the variety of beak shape among the finches of the Galapagos Islands, Darwin's favorite example. Always mentioned is the peppered moth in England, a population of moths whose dominant color shifted during the Industrial Revolution, when soot covered the trees. Insect populations become resistant to DDT, and germs become resistant to antibiotics. While in each case, observed change was limited to microevolution, the inference is that these minor changes can be extrapolated over many generations to macroevolution.

In 1980 about 150 of the world's leading evolutionary theorists gathered at the University of Chicago for a conference entitled "Macroevolution." Their task: "to consider the mechanisms that underlie the origin of species" (Lewin, Science vol. 210, pp. 883-887). "The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution . . . the answer can be given as a clear, No."

Thus the scientific observations support the creation tenet that each basic type is separate and distinct from all others, and that while variation is inevitable, macroevolution does not and did not happen.


While I don't necessarily support creationism or evolutionism, its important to keep an open mind. The point I'm trying to make which seems to elude you, is that while microevolution has been proven and demonstrated, macroevolution has not. So until it, creationism is still just as valid as the concept of macroevolution.

On moderation in this forum:

Its a crock of shit that my posts are deleted or pared down to shavings whereas someone who was not allowed to post in the majority of the forums here and was facing a potential ban is allowed to run around calling people dipshits, let alone fresh faces who want to breath life into these discussions. What incentive is there for new people to stay when they are mocked and derided and aren't even afforded the same level of protection that someone like Fizban enjoys; a known troller and general prick who most people want banned?

In light of Fizban prior behaviour and Harbinger's statement that Fizban is on thin ice, threatening him with a temp ban is understandable. In comparing my history, character and attitude with Fizban's, threatening me with a temp ban is outrageous.

I understand you want to foster an illusion of impartiality, but the fact of the matter is, none of the other posters who have responded to Fizban in a less than salubrious manner have been threatened with temp bans, regardless of where they were posting.

So are you going to address the real issue, which your administrator has keenly identified for you already or are you going to keep threatening me?


Harbinger

03-16-2005, 11:49 PM

Fiz, I'm going to humor you where Kaigun chose not to, not because you deserve it, but because I want to A) Enlighten you and B) Help you realize the value of doing your own research in the future.

What has been observed of evolution is that bacteria populations in dishes, and very small, specialized, isolated wild populations of certain organisms have responded to environmental changes with relatively dramatic phenotypical changes. You add certain pathogens to the bacteria, only those whith resistance live to breed. That's microevolution, and that's been verified in labs.

What hasn't been demonstrated or observed is meaningful change to organisms that causes different species to emerge, or that causes the same species to, for example, to become land dwellers, or grow eyes. It isn't clear that from an amino acid base, all life on earth evolved. It further isn't clear that (if that were indeed possible) there was enough time from the first primordial soup up to now to have been solely responsible for the diversity of life we see today. That is macroevolution, and as you continue your education you will find that they are vastly different, and the distinction is crucial in understanding the state of modern biology.

Edit: I take it back... you've been double humored.


Fizban

03-17-2005, 12:05 AM

What I don't understand harb is why you can't say micro evolution is directly related to macro evolution. Kaig I'd like the information on how those scientists came to that conclusion.

Harb the complex compounds probably came about because of entropy (most atoms are very unstable by themselves). How we began to have such complex chemicals that we can think and have a sense of ourselves is the question. But I do not see the reason why micro-evolution over time can't become macro evolution. The answer I'm getting is no, but why? That's my question.

It seems that it could theoretically work out, whereas creationism doesn't seem to work out in the least, at least in my mind.

So far the only reason why micro-evolution and macro-evolution can't be linked is because we witness 'micro-evolution' changes and say "HEY LOOK EVOLUTION!" then someone else comes a long and says "Yeah, but it's not on a big enough scale. Haw fucktard."

So what, we have to create another human being or something before you guys will accept that indeed micro-evolution and macro are the same thing with labels placed on them to help creationists feel better about their beliefs?


PapaGeorgio

03-17-2005, 01:47 AM

Fiz,

Maybe you can give me an example of micro-evolution that you feel best supports the adding of information to the genome, because evolution/neo-Darwinism/punctuated equilibrium all demand a net gain - if you will - in the total information. If you would prefer, I can show you some of the examples (one-at-a-time) that my sons 7-th grade science book says are examples, or proofs in action, of evolution. And then we can discuss their veracity. Until then, I will post a really old debate (with a portion of a newer one) to show an example that really isn’t such. This is from when I first hopped on the Internet, back when the Discovery magazine forums were in their infancy. I will post it in two, as I imagine the space for it being in one post isn’t enough… so bear with me (someone may post in-between my five-minute wait)


Question Posed To Me In A Previous Debate(George said) “Do you deny that some mutations are beneficial? (Such as, antibiotic resistance in a bacterium).”My ResponseWhat about this example of bacteria resisting antibiotics? Actually, some bacteria possess a natural genetic capacity to resist certain antibiotics; mutations are not involved in these. Mutations cause a structural defect in ribosomes – the cellular constituents that antibiotics like streptomycin attach to. Since the antibiotic doesn’t connect with the misshapen ribosome, the bacterium is resistant.Spetner: “We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein, and that means losing genetic information… Rather than say the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, we would be more correct to say it lost its sensitivity to it. It lost information. The NDT [neo-Darwinian theory] is suppose to explain how the information of life has been built up by evolution… Information cannot be built up by mutations that lose it. A business can’t make money by losing it a little at a time.”In other cases, some mutant bacteria, because they have defective membranes, don’t absorb nutrients well. Fortuitously for them, that inefficiency also prevents their absorbing antibiotics. And so, in this instance also, they survive better than their normal cousins. But the mutation did not make them stronger or create new information, or “evolve” to a higher state. Likewise, if the world’s light suddenly disappeared, blind people might have an advantage over others, since they were already accustomed to operating in darkness. Nevertheless, we cannot then interpret blindness as positive, or representing new information or evolutionary advance.

C.P. Martin, writing in American Scientist, made a similar point when he compared x-rays’ effects on the body to being kicked and beaten [nice family publication]:“It is quite possible that violent knocking about might dislocate a man’s shoulder, and that continued knocking about might actually reduce the previous dislocation… no sane person would cite such a case as this to prove that the results of knocking a man about are not injuries; nor would anyone refer to the result as evidence that knocking a man about can produce an improvement over the normal man. For a truly progressive or evolutionary-apt mutation must result in an improvement over the normal condition. The truth is that there is no clear evidence of the existence of such helpful mutations. In natural populations endless millions of small and great genic differences exist, but there is no evidence that any arose by mutation.”

Second Question Posed(George said) “Do you deny that parents pass traits to their offspring?”Second ResponseThis statement and the evolutionary implications get into what Darwin himself believed while writing his manifesto, that is – Lamarckism. Lets see what some evolutionary scientists had to say (excerpted from my vestigial organs post).

“…Two of the most powerful causes of mutation are mustard gas and x-rays. A moments reflection on the horror of Hiroshima children born with deformed limbs and bodies, or blood disorders condemning them to premature deaths, is enough to show that they were unlikely candidates, to say the least, to win the struggle for existence in a life-game where survival of the fittest is the governing rule.” (British science writer Francis Hitching)

“…To postulate, as the positivists of the end of the last century and their followers here have done, that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or even that nature carries out experiments by trial and error through mutations in order to create living systems better fitted to survive, seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts… These classical evolutionary theories are a gross oversimplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they were swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest.” (Biochemist Ernst Chain, who shared a Nobel Prize for his work on penicillin)

“…Simultaneous appearance of several gene mutations in one individual has never been observed, so far as I know, and any theoretical assertion that this is an important factor in evolution can be dismissed… the probability that five simultaneous mutations would occur in any one individual would be about .0000000000000000000001. This means that if the population averaged 100,000,000 individuals with the average length of generations of only one day, such an event could be expected only once in about 274,000,000,000 years - a period about one hundred times as long as the age of the earth.” (George Gaylord Simpson [R.I.P.], Professor of vertebrate paleontology at Harvard, and, perhaps, the twentieth century's foremost paleontologist)

(Referring to a previous statement about the Panda thumb in another strain) – were you there to see the Panda’s thumb change? Is there fossil proof for it (that could pass the Smithsonian Institutes tests [referring to the virulent rejection by the Smithsonian of the recent “feathered dinosaur” published by Natural Geographic])? Do genetic mutations back up the hypothesis?

I could equally say that an alien race came to earth and "tinkered" with rat till they got a Panda. I would have just as much proof as do evolutionists for the Panda evolving from a lower species, or higher (i.e. fish left the water to eventually become a cow, who, eventually went back to the water to become a whale – this is what evolutionary textbooks teach). I see all this as crazy! I say that I came from a cause greater than the universe and myself. Evolutionists say I came from a rock."…It is easy to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favored by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.” (Colin Patterson of the British Natural History Museum)

"…Paleontologists (and evolutionary biologists in general) are famous for their facility in devising plausible stories; but they often forget that plausible stories need not be true.” (Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard's famed paleontologist and probably evolution's leading spokesperson today)Take the human body, as a total system, is irreducibly complex. It is difficult to change one part without influencing others. The liver for example: it manufactures bile; detoxifies poisons and wastes; regulates storage and use of glucose, proteins, fats and vitamins; synthesizes blood clotting and immune system factors; and processes breakdown products of old blood cells. Or take the kidneys: they remove wastes through urine production; regulate the body's water content and electrolytes (sodium, calcium, etc.); and support the adrenal glands, which secrete hormones such as adrenaline. Or the human heart: blood is pumped to from the right side of the heart to the lungs, where it receives oxygen; then back to the heart's left side, which propels it to the rest of the body through more than 60, 000 miles of vessels. The heart has four chambers; a system of valves prevents backflow into any of these; electrical impulses from a pacemaker control the hearts rhythm.

Rarely, babies are born with congenital heart disorders, making blood shunt to the wrong place. There is no known case of mutations improving circulation! Hemoglobin – the blood's oxygen-carrying component - has over 40 mutant variants. NOT ONE transports oxygen as well as normal hemoglobin! Theodosius Dobzhansky, one of the twentieth centuries leading Darwinists, acknowledged this:“And yet, a majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations, produce deteriorations of viability, hereditary diseases, and monstrosities. Such changes, it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks.”Mr. Hitchings: “On the face of it, then, the prime function of the genetic system would seem to be to resist change: to perpetuate the species in a minimally adapted form of response to altered conditions, and if at all possible to get things back to normal. The role of natural selection is usually a negative one; to destroy the few mutant individuals that threaten the stability of the species.”

Goldschmidt said: “It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has ever produced even a species by selection of micromutaions.”

Goldschmidt would have known - he bread gypsy moths for twenty years and a million generations in various environments. All he ever got was more gypsy moths. Anyone who thinks that an accumulation of mutations (information-losing processes) can lead to Macroevolution (a massive net gain of information) “is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume” (Spetner).


Before we start, let me post this small clip for clarification:It has been proven that resistance to many modern antibiotics was present decades before their [the antibiotics] discovery. In 1845, sailors on an ill-fated Arctic expedition were buried in the permafrost and remained deeply frozen until their bodies were exhumed in 1986. Preservation was so complete that six strains of nineteenth-century bacteria found dormant in the contents of the sailors' intestines were able to be revived! When tested, these bacteria were found to possess resistance to several modern-day antibiotics, including penicillin. Such traits were obviously present prior to penicillin's discovery, and thus could not be an evolutionary development. (Medical Tribune, December 29, 1988, p. 1, 23.)In 1998, the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools and other institutions entitled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., F.M., wrote a book, Refuting Evolution, which is a topic by topic rebuttal to this Academy of Sciences publication. Under the evidence for evolution in the evolutionist text is the following quote:“The continual evolution of human pathogens has come to pose one of the most serious health problems facing human societies. Many strains of bacteria have become increasingly resistant to antibiotics as natural selection has amplified resistant strains that arose through naturally occurring genetic variation.

Similar episodes of rapid evolution are occurring in many different organisms. Rats have developed resistance to the poison warfain. Many hundreds of insect species and other agricultural pests have evolved resistance to the pesticides used to combat them – even to chemical defenses genetically engineered into plants.”(Sarfati’s reply – any words in the are mine):“However, what has this to do with the evolution of [b]new kinds with new genetic information? Precisely nothing. What has happened in many cases is that some bacteria already had the genes for resistance to the antibiotics. In fact, some bacteria obtained by thawing sources which had been frozen before man developed antibiotics have shown to be antibiotic-resistant [6 different antibiotics in fact, even penicillin in modern doses – which is way beyond the strength of natural penicillin found in nature]. When antibiotics are applied to a population of bacteria, those lacking resistance are killed, and any genetic information they carry is eliminated. The survivors carry less information [or specificity], but they are all resistant. The same principle applies to rats and insects ‘evolving’ resistance to pesticides. Again, the resistance was already there, and creatures without resistance are eliminated.”[Much like if we killed all dogs (including Canis Domesticus and Canis Lupus) except for Chihuahuas, we would permanently lose the information of the parent population. You could then breed Chihuahuas for a millennium and not get an Irish Wolfhound]“…In other cases, antibiotic resistance is the result of a mutation, but in all known cases, this mutation has destroyed information. It may seem surprising that destruction of information can sometimes help. But one example is resistance to the antibiotic penicillin. Bacteria normally produce an enzyme, penicillinase, which destroys penicillin. The amount of penicillinase is controlled by a gene. There is normally enough produced to handle any penicillin encountered in the wild, but the bacterium is overwhelmed by the amount given to patients. A mutation disabling this controlling gene results in much more penicillinase being produced.”[Thus, the bacteria found frozen in 1845 already had the mutation to overcome modern medical doses of penicillin. So the mutation wasn’t the result of the penicillin in modern doses, thus seemingly becoming resistant… it already had the resistant mutation – informational or specificity losing – in the population. In other words, no new information was added to the parent population!]“…This enables the bacterium to resist the antibiotics but normally, this mutant would be less fit, as it wastes resources by producing unnecessary penicillinase. Another example of acquired antibiotic resistance is the transfer of pieces of genetic material (called Plasmids) between bacteria, even between those of different species. But this is still using pre-existing information, and doesn’t explain its origin.”


PapaGeorgio

03-17-2005, 01:50 AM

It all fit, nice!


Knight of Dawn

03-17-2005, 01:24 PM

Are we forgetting physical evidence, like fossils and the age of the Earth? Where is the fossil evidence to counter evolution. All it would take is one counter-example to determine that evolution is wrong. Where is it?

Anyway, who said that the body is irreducible? There is nothing saying that the parts of the eye developed together. For example, say that there are two parts to the eye, A and B, and the eye works by telling which way there is light, allowing the animal to hide in the dark, tell when a shadow is overhead, what have you. Now, if a part C was added, that focuses the light onto the receptors and allows and image to be formed, then the animal could see food and predators clearly and greatly improve its chances for survival. With parts A, B, and C the eye works poorly, but it increases the chances for survival. If eventually one of these parts was to become more specified, then it would need to depend on the other parts more and if any of them changed in a way that did not help, the animal would become blind and its odds for survival would drastically decrease. So this trend of specilization would FORCE all other modifications that stay to become more specialized in a loop, causing more specialized structures that improve the eye or are discarded. (or functionally useless)


PapaGeorgio

03-17-2005, 01:53 PM

Knight of Dawn, the following is a post that the old-timers here probably saw me post at Info, however, I wish for you to read through it carefully and tell me how fossils support neo-Darwinism. I realize it is long, and part of a debate years ago with another person, however, it fits well here.What Do the Fossils Say?“…and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” ~ Darwin ~ [speaking of the fossil record]

Let us jump into the two major models by which we can extrapolate our (humanity’s) origins. Either we evolved, or we were created, period. As Douglas Futuyma stated in his anti-creationist book, Science On Trial, “Creation and evolution, between them, exhaust the possible explanations for the origin of living things. Organisms either appeared on the earth fully developed, or they did not. If they did not, they must have developed from preexisting species by some process of modification. If they did appear in a fully developed state, they must indeed have been created by some omnipotent intelligence.” Now, for those who say that this is a religious topic, e.g., religious creationism versus non-religious science, this next part is for you.

The religions of the world that say we evolved over a very long period by a slow evolutionary process are the following:Buddhism, Hinduism, Confucianism, Taoism, Shintoism, Sikhism, Jainism, Animism, Spiritism, Occultism, Satanism, Theosophy, Bahaism, Mysticism, Liberal-Judaism, Liberal-Islam, Liberal-Christianity, Unitarianism, Religious Science, Unity, Humanism.Of course there are differences in the subtleties of these religious belief systems, for example: in Hinduism the earth is balanced on the back of a turtle, who himself is on the back of another – larger – turtle. What we end up with is an infinite progression to an even larger turtle. Nevertheless, the point is, the Hindu believes that all life originally came from the simplest forms, and through millions of years of evolutionary change, we now have arrived at the current phoenix of evolution, man. The only religions that accept the literal, Biblical interpretation of origins are the following: Orthodox Judaism, Orthodox Islam, and Orthodox Christianity.

Is Evolution a Religion?
Huxley called evolution “religion without revelation.” H. S. Lipson, FRS, Professor of Physics, Univ. of Manchester, UK, states that “In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to 'bend' their observations to fit in with it.”

Professor D. M. S. Watson, one of the leading biologists and science writers of his day, demonstrated the bias behind much of the evolutionary thinking when he wrote, “evolution a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible.” So it’s not a question of biased religious creationists versus objective scientific evolutionists; rather, it is the biases of the Christian religion versus the biases of the religion of secular humanism resulting in different interpretations of the same scientific data. As the anti-creationists science writer Boyce Rensberger admits:“At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical process but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.”It’s not really a question of who is biased, but which bias is the correct bias with which to be biased! (Did you follow that?) Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and professor of biology at Harvard University, recently wrote this very revealing comment (I will put in bold where Lewontin originally italicized). It illustrates the implicit philosophical (dare I say religious) bias against creation – regardless of whether or not the facts support it:“We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories; because we have a priori commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”Now, a person does not have to be religious to see or comprehend the evidences for the creation model of our origins. One only has to be scientifically-minded-enough not to reject the evidence due to an “a priori” assumption. What this entails is the open-mindedness of an individual to view evidence, and, even if the evidence goes against his or her presupposed ideas or worldview, that said person, is willing to change their assumptions to fit the evidence, not changing the evidence to fit the assumptions. That being said, how can we know, or see, the past via our models of origins (creation or evolution)? Are there certain predictions or events the theories say we should see if that particular view of life is true? There certainly is! Lets see if we can sort a few of the major predictions made by the differing models and see where the evidence lies.

The Importance of the Fossil RecordLet us begin with the evolutionary view of life, and what the fossil record should show in accordance with the predicted event – which is, life changing over time from the simplest form (i.e., a single celled ameba) to the most complicated forms (i.e., volitional invertebrates, man). In other words, creationists and evolutionist have radically different ideas as to the kinds of life they expect to find as fossils, created or evolved.

Evolutionists should expect to clearly see, and in fact predicted over 120 years earlier, one type of animal or plant changing into another type. The prediction then is that the boundaries between kinds should blur as we look further and further back into time via their fossil history. Better put is this defining explanation by Dr. Henry Morris on the importance of the fossil record:“The fossil record must provide the critical evidence for or against evolution, since no other scientific evidence can possibly throw light on the actual history of living things. All other evidence is circumstantial…. The time scale of human observation is far too short to permit documentation of real evolutionary change from lower to higher kinds of organisms at the present time. The vital question, therefore, is: ‘Does the record of past ages, now preserved in the form of fossils, show that such changes have occurred?’” (Dr. Morris is a creationist [all creationists – I only quote three – are pointed out)Dr. Duane Gish also states the importance of the fossil record:“Much evidence could be drawn from the fields of cosmology, chemistry, thermodynamics, mathematics, molecular biology, and genetics in an attempt to decide which model offers a more plausible explanation for the origin of living things. In the final analysis, however, what actually did happen can only be decided, scientifically, by an examination of the historical record, that is, the fossil record.” (Dr. Gish is a creationist)Of course, I would be remiss if I didn’t include some quotes by evolutionists on this same subject, since I just quoted two well-known creation scientists. W. Le Gros Clark, the well-known British evolutionist, has said:“That evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.”Pierre Grasse, the most distinguished of all French zoologists, whose knowledge of the living world was said to be encyclopedic, said this:“Naturalist must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. Neither the examination of present beings, nor imagination, nor theories can serve as a substitute for paleontological documents. If they ignore them, biologists, the philosophers of nature, indulge in numerous commentaries and can only come up with hypothesis. This is why we constantly have recourse to paleontology, the only true science of evolution…. The true course of evolution is and can only be revealed by paleontology.” Elsewhere he comments: “Thus evolution actually did occur can only be scientifically established by the discovery of the fossilized remains of representative samples of those intermediate types which have been postulated on the basis of the indirect evidence. In other words, the really crucial evidence for evolution must be provided by the paleontologist whose business it is to study the evidence of the fossil record.”Sir Gavin de Beer, well known British biologist and of course, evolutionist, said:“The last word on the credibility and course of evolution lies with the paleontologist…”Glenister and Witzke, in their chapter in an anti-creationist book, state:“The fossil record affords an opportunity to choose between evolutionary and creationist models for the origin of the earth and its life forms.”It would be sensible to assume then, that the fossil record is important, if not crucial, to this debate for the origins of humankind. Thus, the history of life may be traced through an examination of the fossilized remains of past forms of life entombed in the rocks. If life arose from an inanimate world through a mechanistic, naturalistic, evolutionary process and then diversified by a similar process via increasingly complex forms in to the millions of species that have existed and now exist; then the fossils actually found in the rocks should correspond to those predicted on the basis of such a process. On the other hand, if living things came into being by a process of special creation, the broad outlines of which are given in the first two chapters of Genesis, then predictions very different from those based on evolutionary theory should be made concerning the fossil record.

Creation Model
On the basis of the creation model, we would predict an explosive appearance in the fossil record of highly complex forms of life without evidence of ancestral forms. We would predict that all of the major types of life, that is, the basic plant and animal forms, would appear abruptly in the fossil record without evidence of transitional forms linking one basic kind to another. We would thus expect to find fossilized remains, for example, of cats, dogs, bears, elephants, cows, horses, bats, dinosaurs, crocodiles, monkeys, apes, and men without evidence of common ancestors. Each major kind at its earliest appearance in the fossil record would possess, fully developed, all the characteristics that are used to define that particular kind.

Evolution Model
On the basis of the evolution model, we would predict that the most ancient strata in which fossils are found would contain the most primitive forms of life capable of leaving a fossil record. As successively younger strata were searched, we would expect to see gradual transition of these relatively simple forms of life into more and more complex forms of life. As living forms diverged into the millions of species which have existed in the past and which exist today, we would expect to find a transition of one form into another.

We would predict that new types would not appear suddenly in the fossil record possessing all of the characteristics which are used to define that group but would retain characteristics used to define the ancestral group. Dr. Gish says, “There should not be any difficulty in finding transitional forms. Hundreds of transitional forms should fill museum collections. If we find fossils at all, we ought to find transitional forms. As a matter of fact, difficulty in placing a fossil with a distinct category should be the rule rather than the exception.”

What Do the Evolutionists Say?To better grasp what we are dealing with here, let us first see what some of the bigger names in the evolutionary field of geology and paleontology have to say about the fossil record and the evidence that it portrays. Charles Darwin, the man whose theory is the topic of this discussion, also realized the foundational importance of this matter to the life-blood of his theory, if you will:“[Since] innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them imbedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.”Again, Darwin:“The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists… as a fatal objection to the belief of the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life at once, that fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution through natural selection. For the development by this means of a group of forms all of which are (according to the theory) descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long before their modified descendants.”Thomas Huxley, Darwin’s “bulldog,” also realized the importance of this issue when he wrote:“If it could be shown that this fact [gaps between widely distinct groups] had always existed, the fact would be fatal to the doctrine of evolution.”Absence of transitional forms was a continuing problem for Darwin, as it is for paleontologists today. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, make this abundantly clear with this statement:“He [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn’t look the way he predicted it would, and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…. Darwin’s general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…. We are now about 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn’t changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin’s time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America [still on display in the Los Angeles Natural History Museum], have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information.” [Archaeopteryx as well]Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, probably evolution’s leading spokesperson today, has acknowledged:“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.”Anthropologist Edmund R. Leach told the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science:“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.”George Gaylord Simpson, perhaps the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, said:“This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon, as has long been noted by paleontologists. It is true of almost all orders of all classes of animals, both vertebrate and invertebrate.”Dr. Steven Stanley of the department of Earth and Planetary Sciences, John Hopkins University, says:“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic [structural] transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”Professor Heribert Nilsson, Director of the Botanical Institute at Lund University, Sweden, declared after forty years of study in this field:“It may, therefore, be firmly maintained that it is not even possible to make a caricature of evolution out of paleobiological facts. The fossil material is now so complete that it has been possible to construct new classes and the lack of transitional series cannot be explained as due to the scarcity of the material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.”Gareth J. Nelson, of the American Museum of Natural History:“It is a mistake to believe that even one fossil species or fossil ‘group’ can be demonstrated to have been ancestral to another. The ancestor-descendant relationship may only be assumed to have existed in the absence of evidence indicating otherwise.”Well known British zoologist Mark Ridley declares:“…no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.”Moreover, Newsweek reported:“In the fossil record, missing links are the rule: the story of life is as disjointed as a silent newsreel, in which species succeed one another as abruptly as Balkan prime ministers. The more scientists have searched for the transitional forms between species, the more they have been frustrated.”Lord Solly Zuckerman, M.A.,M.D.,D.Sc., famous British anatomist concurred:"...if man evolved from an apelike creature he did so without leaving a trace of that evolution in the fossil record."Dr. Derek V. Ager from the Department of Geology, Imperial College, London, at the Proceedings of the Geological Association said:"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as student...have been debunked."Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland:"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustrations of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly would have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”Again, Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world’s largest fossil collection – sixty million specimens – said:“For almost 20 years I thought I was working on evolution…. But there was not one thing I knew about it…. So for the last few weeks I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people. Question is: ‘Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true?’ [Fossils being included in this question of “Where’s the beef?”] I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all i got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘Yes, I do know one thing -–it ought not to be taught in high school.’ … During the past few years… you have experienced a shift from evolution as knowledge to evolution as faith…. Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”So by using quotes and comments by evolutionists themselves on the subject of the fossil record and what evidences it provides, I have shown that as of yet, the evolutionary predictions made about the geological record have not been met. What does the fossil record show? Let us peer into just the first layer and see if this could shed light on the prediction made by the evolutionary model that we should find simpler life forms evolving into more complicated forms and fauna in the upper parts of the geological columns.

The Cambrian [i]“Explosion”In the Cambrian rocks are found a multitude of highly complex creatures with no ancestors. After vertebrates were found in the Cambrian, Science magazine placed every major animal phylum (group) in the Cambrian rocks. This information comes as a shock to most people for it is not discussed in school or university textbooks. Dr. Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History said, “There is still a tremendous problem with the sudden diversification of multicellular life. There is no question about that. That’s a real phenomenon.” Noted evolutionist Dr. George Gaylord Simpson has called the sudden appearance of many types of complex life forms in the Cambrian rocks (around the entire globe) the “major mystery of the history of life.” He went on to say that two-thirds of evolution was already over by the time we found the fist fossils. Today, some scientists are saying 75 percent of the evolutionary process occurred before the first fossils were deposited.

Dr. David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and George Gaylord Simpson, the twentieth century’s foremost paleontologist, have both pointed to the fact that two-thirds of evolution was over by the time we found the first fossils. Creationists were saying that to an open-minded person (setting you’re “a priori” presuppositions aside), this would indicate agreement between the creation model and what is found in the fossil record. Eldredge goes on to say:“Then there was something of an explosion. Beginning about six hundred million years ago and continuing for about ten to fifteen million years [Dr. Gould rates it about five million], the earliest known representatives of the major kinds of animals still populating today’s seas made a rather abrupt appearance. This rather protracted ‘event’ shows up graphically in the rock record…. Creationists have made much of this sudden development of a rich and varied fossil record where, just before, there was none…. Indeed, the sudden appearance of a varied, well-preserved array of fossils, which geologists have used to mark the beginnings of the Cambrian Period does pose a fascinating intellectual challenges.”Science magazine had evolutionary scientist, Dr. David Woodruff, do a review of the book Macroevolution, Pattern and Process. Dr. Woodruff stated that the fossil record “fails to contain a single example of a significant transition.” [FYI, all creationists believe in what is referred to – wrongly – as microevolution, however, the disagreement is over macroevolution.] Ichthyologist Dr. Donn Rosen, the late curator of fish at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, noted that evolution has been “unable to provide scientific data about the origin, diversity, and similarity of the two-million species that inhabit the earth and the estimated eight million others that once thrived.” Dr. Steven M. Stanley, professor of paleobiology at John Hopkins University, openly admits that “the known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic [gradual] evolution accomplishing a major morphological transition and hence offers no evidence that the gradualistic model can be valid.”

In the book Darwin’s Enigma, Luther Sunderland (a creationist, although, at the time of the interviews the interviewees didn’t realize this) interviewed five top paleontologists at leading natural history museums around the world (some of which have been mentioned already), each having significant fossil collections. Those interviewed were Dr. David Pilbeam, former curator of the Peabody Museum of Natural History at Yale, later professor of anthropology at Harvard; Dr. Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History; Dr. Niles Eldredge, curator of invertebrate paleontology at the American Museum in New York City; Dr. David M. Raup, curator of Geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago; and Dr. Donald Fisher, state paleontologist at the New York State Natural History Museum. This is what Sunderland said after all the above men were interviewed:“None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.”

So, is the proof of evolution “wanting?” Dr. Eldredge when he confessed about our textbooks in the colleges and universities (and presumably television channels such as the Discovery Channel or The Learning Channel) also confessed to the lack of evidence about the theory of evolution that so permeates our society:“I admit that an awful lot of [mis]information has gotten into the textbooks as though it were true…. Many statements about prehistoric time, or a presumed fossil record, partake of imaginative narratives.”Is it any wonder then when writers and scientists say such things like, “Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grownups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless” (Professor Louis Bounoure, Former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research). Or that “I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution especially the extent to which it's been applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books of the future. Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted with the incredible credulity that it has” (Malcolm Muggeridge, world famous journalist, writer and philosopher).

These men are only commenting on the lack of any credible evidence that should be there if evolution were true. They are only commenting on the predictions made that are yet to be substantiated. To reject creation a priori and to defend a model that lacks any substance, whatsoever, is itself unscientific. Or, as the senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History puts it, “Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, but seems somehow to convey anti-knowledge.”

Dr. Gish remarks that, “Eldredge admits that ‘The Cambrian evolutionary explosion is still shrouded in mystery.’ But creation scientists say, ‘what greater evidence for creation could the rocks give than this abrupt appearance of a great variety of complex creatures without trace of ancestors?’ Thus we see, right from the beginning, on the basis of an evolutionary scenario, the evidence is directly contradictory to predictions based on evolution but is remarkably in accord with predictions based on creation. This [Cambrian] evidence alone I sufficient to establish the fact that evolution has not occurred on the earth.”

To Conclude
When creationists look at evolution through the eyes of mathematical probabilities; the fossil record; information theory and the vast informational content in living things; the laws of thermodynamics, biogenesis and non-contradiction; comparative studies in physiology/anatomy/taxonomy/embryology/ morphology/genetics and biochemistry; and sciences such as anthropology, geology, and biology, they (we) find it hard to believe that anyone who fairly examines this issue could state that evolution is a fact – or even a credible theory. This is why creationists argue that any open-minded individual, scientist or layman, who will objectively evaluate all the evidence, will discover that such evidence comes down heavily on the side of creation.

As I have shown with the crux of the Darwinian theory, the fossil record. Where does the evidence lay? With creation.


Fizban

03-17-2005, 08:11 PM

a quarter of a million fossil species

Isn't there something like 90 billion multicultural different organisms estimated to exist today? (Meaning that the fossil records should contain billions of creature species, this would infer that we’ve got a huge hole) If so a quarter of a million fossil species is severely lacking. Not to mention you neglect to mention that rocks on earth are recycled, rocks don't get much older than 3 billion years (even these aren't from our planet in general all rocks on our planet are the same 'age'). The reason rocks around our planet are the same age is because of plate tectonics, it could be impossible to tell the origin of life on this planet at this point with so much of the ancestral history destroyed. Creation might've happened in this planet, or this whole solar system, but the origin of life in the 'everything' would not make sense to've just appeared. Which would mean this debate is rather pointless. After reading everything you quoted and posted I'm still unwavering on the issue of origin of life.

What we do know about fossil records, there appears to be an evolution of many species from other species. *points at records of prime apes* From known information as the species gets older the more primitive it is, as the species gets younger the more resemblance it has to humans. Sure we lack trillions of transition species so you can see every chemical change as it went from one species to another, but it doesn't make sense to say that 'god' created billions of species many that were suited for their environment would be challenged by millions of others who were also suited for it.

Perhaps we're jumping the gun in asking how, when we need to know why first.

On the topic of micro-evolution, I was picturing micro-evolution one way when in actuality I had two perceptions of macro-evolution.

Your debating skills barrage your opponents with the same thing over and over, you hold two black and white exaples clearly and use 40,000 words to illustrate 2 or 3 main points. While that's great it's rambling and very hard to try and pick the points out from it.

In a way, you're pulling a cirE with more intelligence, and less finesse. Please stop.

edit
This is what I got from your last post

Fossils part 1: Trivial information

Evolution a religion: Doesn't seem to answer the question

Importance of Fossil Record: Known information understandable but redundant. Point being made: Lack of transition fossils

Creation Model of Fossil Record: Understandable, no point

Evolution Model of Fossil Record: Understandable, no point

What do evolutionists say: Redundant, the only thing that seems applicable is the last paragraph of that whole section and even so it doesn't seem to say much

The cambrian explosion: Understandable point. Redundant and loses site of point quickly. Point being made: crisp almost creationism fossil records

To conclude: Every clear point he made is contained here. From what I see, you've proven that evolution, at very least, has as much back up as creationism does.

The last sentance: The crux of darwinian evolution, he succeeded (debatable) in proving that there was just as much proof for evolution as there is for creationism

If you would, critique what I got out of your posts in your next post, I don't need an essay for each critique just add the SUMMARIZED points you were trying to make.

Oh and no offense, but for some reason reading your chores seems like a chore, you're the only person I can say that for on this entire forum. When cirE tries to post intelligently his posts greatly resemble yours on the boringness scale.


PapaGeorgio

03-17-2005, 08:47 PM

Fiz,

While the rocks on earth are dated at around 3 to 3.7 billion years old (assuming evolutionary ages), the beginning of life’s history was much sooner. Six-hundred-million-years ago life was beginning. So this life history in the rocks is well preserved.....Darwin and TH Huxley argued that the fossil record was incomplete, and that intermediate forms would eventually be found to support the theory of evolution. But as of now, there are 200 million fossil specimens representing 250,000 fossil species. 42 out of 43 living orders of land vertebrates have been found as fossils (97.7%) — as have 261 out of 329 living families (79.9%). If you exclude birds, which don't fossilize well since their bones are so flimsy, it's 156 out of 178 living families (87.8%). In some regions, such as N Am, the fossil record is virtually complete. So although it is true that intermediates could still turn up, it is beginning to look somewhat unlikely that they will….

....There are lots of fossils which go back a long way in the fossil record — in some cases, hundreds of millions of years:
various bacteria
insect wings
cockroaches
horseshoe crabs
squid
certain snails
ants
bowfin fishes
gars lungfishes
sturgeon
many frogs and toads
crocodiles and alligators
bats
squirrels
shrews
tapirs
opossums
porcupines
aardvarks
[and the like]Unchanged for millions of years....

http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/science/sc0042.html
Do you have an example of micro-evolution that you have in your mind that you wish to defend? Also, the word itself, “micro-evolution,” is a misnomer. It isn’t that the organism put under the pressures of natural selection, or un-natural selection “evolve” at all. In fact, no unchallenged new species has ever been produced in nature, or by man. Defining species is a sticky situation as well. That topic has gone rounds in my debates as well.

My son’s textbook displays the peppered moth as an example, it displays embryos going through similar stages to a common ancestor (otherwise known as “ontogeny repeats recapitulation”), it shows the horse evolution, Darwin’s tree of life, finch beaks, breeds of dogs, etc. any of these jump out at you for proving that man came from the rocks?


Fizban

03-17-2005, 11:21 PM

What's strange is that that simplist life forms date back to millions of years, and the more complex date back sooner. Intermediate life is bound to turn up, unless god has been sitting stiring the pot for 600 million years. Might I remind you that the genetic difference of Apes is the 1.4%-2.6% (different human ethinicities varie in genetic sense greatly), 1.2% seperates them from the genetic make up of a human, it's possible that what people are saying as intermediate took leaps and bounds in response to major events (sun spots solar flares etc).

BTW it's very rare to find 3 billion year old rocks and when you do they're normally not of our planet.


PapaGeorgio

03-18-2005, 01:56 AM

The close variation between ape and man was done on a small sample of DNA… at the time it was thought that there was “junk DNA” taking up most of the space of the DAN ladder, now it is known that there is no junk DNA (as I argued for years!; just as the appendix has a function… or any other “vestigial” non-function attributed to the human body and its molecular machines). We know so little about the makeup of these molecules that to say for sure that we vary “X amount” is silly. Another thing to take note of is that both ape and man have eyes, we breathe the same air, we digest much the same staple and way, we make love the same way – except mankind has a more ontological way of viewing love. In other words, Fiz, apes cannot sit down and write Hamlet… or figure out that WorldCom fudged its books, or the like. So even if we were 97% in closeness to apes/chimps, or whatever, it would be the same as saying that just because a watermelon and a cloud are both 98% water, that they are the same.

Another thing! I do not agree with the long-age of the earth. So I do not accept your theological – not scientific – premise that God sat around on His laurels for 600 million years.

As for your “sun-spots” and the like, are you so hard up for a proof, or evidence, for the evolutionary premise that you must jump at “God stirring a pot” or “sun-spots?” I am still waiting for you to show this “dipshit” a thing or two. Name one thing that you feel confident that shows the evolutionary paradigm to be true, or at least logical, and we will talk, Fiz.

P.S. The trilobite eye is the most complicated eye known to exist in geological history. And it was at the “beginning” of this “simplest life form” era, HHmmmm.


Fizban

03-18-2005, 02:40 AM

Papa, 1, apes can't communicate like humans can; they don’t have the brain capacity. They can't speak, and they use all time they have socializing and finding food, they don’t have time for art. You can see the difference that a few chemicals can produce right there.

As for a debate, I kind of lost my steam somewhere (you're still a dipshit, I blame your boring posts), at this point I think we're both to the point that we'll rationalize anything that challenges our belief system. As for why evolution is logical, think about it, it seems obvious that entropy and the other laws of science support it (yeah you're pointing out the lack of fossil records for either side so that’s a dead end), not to mention the simplicity of how it'd work. Creationism deals with metaphysical beings, evolution does not.

I can't understand how you can say earth is only 6,000 or 13,000 (depending on which Christian’s research you support) years old, carbon dating isn't exact, but 10,000 years is nothing when we're comparing millions of years. How can you rationalize the age of the earth?

As for your eye thing, it was not at the beginning of this simplest life form, microbes existed for millions of years without it as do the majority of ancient deep sea creatures.

If I remember correctly fossil records shows this chronologically

Prokaryotes (spanning always)
Eukaryotes (spanning always)
Plant life (coral, seaweed land plants)
Jelly fish type stuff
Slug type water creatures <-- backbones
Crabs and clam type stuff (crabs and the like) <--- Eye
Insects (insects strongly resemble cru stations)
Fish type stuff <--- lungs and other stuff
Lizards <--- supportive skeleton and organs like ours
Birds & Mammals

Something like that, I can't be bothered to look up the proper names. Bite me.

My point with the sunspots and stuff is anything that releases energy makes new compounds that ordinarily can't be created because of entropy, possible.

I'm gona wash my hands of this at this point unless I find something about the topic that interests me or someone posts something else I want to debate about.

EDIT: I'm not saying that the evolution pattern is linear, a lot of those things in the list could've come at the same time.


Frozen

03-18-2005, 01:46 PM

<3 Papa

It's about time someone else who hates evolution showed up on these forums. I've actually gotten tired of arguing evolution vs. creation, which is why I have not shown up really in this thread.

Fizban, stop being ignorant. All you're doing is calling him dumb and boring. You're barely making a solid point. This forum is meant for intelligent posting. Try it sometime.

Papa, you pretty much have been saying what I've been saying for years. Only in more depth.

Main points:

(1)There is a reason it's called the "missing link"
(2)Carbon dating is innaccurate and unreliable
(3)Scientists base their "findings" on evolution, often bending the rules to an extreme just to "prove" evolution
(4)The horse, and peppered moth "proofs of evolution" were proven wrong decades ago
(5)There is scientific evidence that the earth and universe are not millions/billions of years old

Evidence from the Universe

-The sun is shrinking and it's mass would be too large for the earth to exist billions of years ago
-The small layer of cosmic dust on the moon indicates less than 10,000 years of accumulation.
-The existence of short-period comets indicates the universe is less than 10,000 years old.
-Fossil meteorites are very rare in layers other than the top layers of the earth. This indicates that the layers were not exposed for millions of years (as being taught in schools).
-The moon is receding a few inches each year. A few million years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have destroyed the earth twice a day.
-The moon contains considerable quantities of U-236 and Th-230, both short-lived isotopes that would have been long gone if the moon were billions of years old.
-The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young.
-At the rate many star clusters are expanding, they could not have been traveiling for more than a few thousand years.
-Saturn's rings are still unstable, indicating they are not millions of years old.
-Jupiter and Saturn are cooling off rather rapidly. They are losing heat twice as fast as they gain it from the sun. They cannot be billions of years old. Jupiter's moon Io is losing matter to Jupiter. It cannot be billions of years old.
-It appears that the stars in the centers of many galaxies are moving faster than the stars at the outer edges. This would make the galaxies lose their spiral shape and spin into a homogenous mass if they were billions of years old.

Evidence from the earth

-The decaying magnetic field limits earth's age to less than 25,000.
-Dividing the amount of various minerals in the ocean by their influx rate gives only a few thousand years of accumulation.
-The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years.
-The erosion rate of the continents is such that they would erode to sea level in less than 14,000 years (destroying all old fossils).
-Topsoil formation rates indicate only a few thousand years of formation.
-Niagra Falls erosion rate (four to five feet a year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years.
-Incredible pressure found in oil and gas wells indicates they have been there less than 15,000 years.
-The size of the Mississippi River delta, divided by the rate mud is being deposited, gives an age of less than 30,000 years.
-The slowing spin of the earth limits it's age to less than billions of years.
-Only a small amount of sediment is now on the ocean floor, indicating only a few thousand years of accumulation.
-The largest stalactites and flowstone formations in the world could have formed in about 4400 years.
-The Sahara desert is expanding. It could easily be formed in a few thousand years.
-The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old.
-The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old.

Even if you can give explanations for most of these, only one is needed to prove Evolution false.


Fizban

03-18-2005, 02:42 PM

God, frozen I'm sorry but papa was doing a lot better without your help.

1. I never cited either the moths or horses as proof of evolution.
2. Radioactive carbon dating is accurate within 10,000 years.
3. Half of your scientific evidence relies on the fact that everything was supposedly created at the same time, rendering it moot.
4. Radioactive elements with short a half-life cannot be used to determine the age of the planet because they are created and decay spontaneously.
5. The moon was created a hundreds of millions of years ago, not billions. The tides are the reason why land life didn't come about for millions of years after sea life.
6. The moon moves away at 1 cm a year, there's something like 384,403km, that's 384,403,000 meters, or 38,440,300,000 centimeters. 38 million years, not to mention the fact that when it was closer the speed at which it left earth was smaller.
7. Lunar rocks from the moon have been dated to hundreds of millions of years old.
8. The sun is shrinking, but its rate is immeasurable because it spontaneously re-expands and re-shrinks.
9. Cosmic dust is very easy to remove; a single large meteor strike could strike the moon clean of it. There's plenty of evidence of meteor strikes all over the moon.
10. The existence of short period comets does not mean the universe is young; it means these comets were formed RECENTLY, as do the majority of your points dealing with similar conjectures.
11. U-236 and Th-230 are also found in asteroids, and spontaneously form from their father elements. Also we don't know the effects of radiation in no atmosphere; it's obvious that entropy does not apply where cosmic radiation can change the laws of energies.
12. The existence of great quantities of space dust, which by the Pointing-Robertson effect would have been vacuumed out of our solar system in a few thousand years, indicates the solar system is young. This point has been proven wrong by the fact he didn't take into account that everything in the solar system produces space dust. Not to mention the fact that not only disproves itself but helps shed light on the reason the dust on the moon is so young.
13. Your forgetting the effects of gravity and energy on expanding bodies. Stars expand extremely quickly then collapse on themselves and so on and so fourth.
14. Jupiter and Saturn also used to exist closer to the sun; the loss of heat is exponential rather than linear, until it plateaus out by the fact that the massive gravity of them generates its own heat.
15. We don't know what caused Saturn’s rings, we can't say that they are old, another one of your conjectures which is moot. See # 10
16. Har, theory of relativity maet? Not to mention spiral effect of galaxies is created because the outer stars move slower but can't move slower than a certain point because of gravity.
17. Earth's magnetic field switches polarities every 10,000 years or so.
18. The erosion rate of the continents is countered by plate tectonics, go look it up.
19. Helium 4 also decays and is formed into compounds. The production rate simply = the usage rate.
20. The mineral deposits are also explained by plate tectonics.
21. Wow, you just went into points about erosion and you can't explain why the topsoil is pretty young? Erosion happens on land to you fuckwit.
22. Niagara fall's 'birthdate' coincides with the melting of the glaciers in the last ice age. See # 10
23. Pressure stabilizes dipshit; it is no indication of age, see #10 as well.
24. The Mississippi River DID NOT ALWAYS EXSIST DURHURR, see number 10, the age of a land mark on earth is no indication of HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.
25. The earth's spin is exponential not linear.
26. v.v; see number 21 erosion happens under the ocean as well. Not to mention that rock and sediments are more likely to be recycled under the ocean due to plate tectonics.
27. Plate tectonics dude, the earth periodically recycles itself.
28. Yes but you're making the same damn mistake with the desert as you did with Niagara Falls and 20% of these points. See number 10.
29. -The oldest coral reef is about 4200 years old. <- erosion, not to mention this is a fallacy.
30. -The oldest living tree in the world is 4300 years old. <--- check your points before you post them. And for both coral reef and the trees see # 10.

God frozen, nothing you posted had any substance. You can't ignore plate tectonics or erosion just because it doesn't fit with that point your making. Just go away, you have nothing to offer here.


PapaGeorgio

03-18-2005, 02:43 PM

Fiz,

You are wrong when you sad:I think we're both to the point that we'll rationalize anything that challenges our belief systemI am always ready for a proof that is both logically sound (using the principles of logic) and scientifically sound (using the principles of true science, not scientism). I am not pointing to the lack of intermediate fossils as a negative to Darwinian evolution, Knight of Dawn brought the point up that the fossil record is a good example of evolution, and secondly, it is the evolutionary community of scientists that are rejecting it, not “creationists.” as I clearly and succinctly showed. What I am trying to say is that this isn’t an argument between, say, Knight of Dawn and me (what he views I’m sure as: science vs. religion), it is an argument between Knight of Dawn and the scientific community (that is, between scientism/misunderstanding vs. true science). And the reason I here afford the title true science to the examples of naturalistic scientists and their quotes on the subject of the fossil record is because while they may still believe in the veracity of evolution, they make no qualms in stating that they cannot extrapolate from an argument of silence something that that silent argument doesn’t afford. (Fiz, you may have to read that sentence again to get its meaning.)

Fiz, again you are wrong when you say:Creationism deals with metaphysical beings, evolution does not.I suggest, and this is only a suggestion that will only make your understanding of a situation grow – not to make you agree with the situation (in this, Intelligent Design). There is a DVD documentary that was the #3 seller two Christmas’ ago on PBS’s “Science / Math” section, it is entitled Unlocking the Mystery of Life. the below sites are info from the publisher about the DVD and where to catch on PBS. Also I will link you to Amazons comments on it.
http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00007KLDW/102-4352165-0416137?v=glance
“…It does an admirable job of keeping the dialogue scientific, there is nothing religious in nature in the presentation and it is equally suitable for showing in both the Church and the public school system…”I also recommend another documentary, it is called, The Privileged Planet. It is also a book, a fascinating book at that.
DVD
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002E34C0/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-4352165-0416137?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260654/102-4352165-0416137
I believe that if you get these two resources you will see that both Design theorists and Naturalists deal with the same evidence. Only a suggestion though. And if you give me crap about $, I will copy them and mail them to you for free.


.



Frozen, I appreciate the kind words.



.


Fizban

03-18-2005, 02:46 PM

http://www.illustramedia.com/umolinfo.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B00007KLDW/102-4352165-0416137?v=glance
“…It does an admirable job of keeping the dialogue scientific, there is nothing religious in nature in the presentation and it is equally suitable for showing in both the Church and the public school system…”[/list]I also recommend another documentary, it is called, The Privileged Planet. It is also a book, a fascinating book at that.
DVD
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B0002E34C0/ref=pd_sim_b_5/102-4352165-0416137?%5Fencoding=UTF8&v=glance

Book
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0895260654/102-4352165-0416137
I believe that if you get these two resources you will see that both Design theorists and Naturalists deal with the same evidence. Only a suggestion though. And if you give me crap about $, I will copy them and mail them to you for free.

My parents would murder me if I gave out my mailing adress. I'll figure out a way to download them instead.


PapaGeorgio

03-18-2005, 02:55 PM

If you have a business address or P.O. Box, I can send it there. I can't think of any Christian fundamentalists that are stalking and killing people, can you? I can name Muslims who are doing so, but not Christians.

Sorry for this personal, not debating topic post... my bad!


Fizban

03-18-2005, 04:35 PM

Why would I have either of those? I'm 17 years old... I'm downloading the stuff with a p2p file sharer.

same as papa


Frozen

03-18-2005, 06:06 PM

Fizban, maybe you could try having civil conversation for once in your life.



1. I never cited either the moths or horses as proof of evolution.

I never said you were. I was simply stating a fact. Both those "proofs" are still being taught today. Why? Because people have a faith in evolution so disgusting they would continue to lie simply to brainwash little kids into believing it.


2. Radioactive carbon dating is accurate within 10,000 years.

Could we then agree that it gets even more innacurate the older the object is believed to be? So then how do we "know" things are millions/billions of years old? What about tampering from nature?

5. The moon was created a hundreds of millions of years ago, not billions. The tides are the reason why land life didn't come about for millions of years after sea life.

6. The moon moves away at 1 cm a year, there's something like 384,403km, that's 384,403,000 meters, or 38,440,300,000 centimeters. 38 million years, not to mention the fact that when it was closer the speed at which it left earth was smaller.

That is in no way proof of evolution, or even in the age of the moon. God could have created the moon at that distance 6k years ago.

And if you assume it was 38 Million, that'd put it nice n' close to the earth, fucking the whole thing up.


7. Lunar rocks from the moon have been dated to hundreds of millions of years old.

10. The existence of short period comets does not mean the universe is young; it means these comets were formed RECENTLY, as do the majority of your points dealing with similar conjectures.


Yet the dating system is innacurate after 10k! You're telling me I'm wrong in my logic, but in the same stroke of the keyboard you're using that same logic to somehow "prove" me wrong.


14. Jupiter and Saturn also used to exist closer to the sun; the loss of heat is exponential rather than linear, until it plateaus out by the fact that the massive gravity of them generates its own heat.

I must be going crazy! I'm totally not seeing your proof of this! Hah! Silly me.

17. Earth's magnetic field switches polarities every 10,000 years or so.


Again! I just don't see where the proof is!

24. The Mississippi River DID NOT ALWAYS EXSIST DURHURR, see number 10, the age of a land mark on earth is no indication of HOW OLD THE EARTH IS.

I should just bunch up all these one's I just don't see your proof for.

28. Yes but you're making the same damn mistake with the desert as you did with Niagara Falls and 20% of these points. See number 10.

Fiz, you must be millions of years old yourself. Obviously you were there to see all of it happen.

You make the assumption that "not everything was formed at the same time." Could I not counter this by saying "God created the universe and all things in it with different ages." Were Adam and Eve fetuses in the Bible?

Hell, I'm not even out to prove Creation is right. I just want to point out the fallacies in Evolution. Not saying it isn't true, just saying it isn't the all-right answer for everything like it's preached to be today. I don't know, I guess I just would like to see the Theory of Evolution proven true before being taught as a fact. It's got too many loopholes and missing links to be true, at least at this stage in it's research.

Edit:

Just to solidify my point on how rediculous carbon dating is:

Shells from living snails were carbon dated as being 27,000 years old. Science vol. 224, 1984, pp. 58-61

Living mollusk shells were dated up to 2300 years old. Science vol. 141, 1963, pp.634-637

A freshly killed seal was carbon dated as having died 1300 years ago! Antarctic Journal vol. 6, Sept-Oct. 1971, p.211

"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.

"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30

"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

The two Colorado Creek mammoths had radiocarbon ages of 22,850 670 and 16,150 230 years respectively." --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124

"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

"Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." --O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54


Fizban

03-18-2005, 07:16 PM

I warned you definitively.


Knight of Dawn

03-18-2005, 08:30 PM

Does anyone have a day job here? I swear, I look through this topic and find several pages of reading waiting for me...

Anyway, I'll continue posting on interesting points (despite the fact that nobody pays attention.)


A bit of misunderstanding...

Knight of Dawn brought the point up that the fossil record is a good example of evolution, and secondly, it is the evolutionary community of scientists that are rejecting it, not “creationists.” as I clearly and succinctly showed. What I am trying to say is that this isn’t an argument between, say, Knight of Dawn and me (what he views I’m sure as: science vs. religion), it is an argument between Knight of Dawn and the scientific community (that is, between scientism/misunderstanding vs. true science).
I was pointing more towards a lack of complicated fossils before less complex, your interpertation of what I said was valid. Of course it is possible for fossils to be wrong, but that does not prove creationism, the topic of this thread. I was merely reffering to it in order to have people pay attention to the main issue. Just because the fossil record is incomplete, the Theory of Evolution still holds, since it is an interpertation of the data available. I do recognize that it may be "tainted" by bias, but until I see a eukaryotic fossil before a prokaryotic fossil it retains a certain amount of legitimacy. The problem with bias is because of how logical the Theory is.



17. Earth's magnetic field switches polarities every 10,000 years or so.

Again! I just don't see where the proof is!

The proof is in Lodestones, natural magnets. Do a little research to figure it out. If you can't find any information, then I'll post a source.


Because people have a faith in evolution so disgusting they would continue to lie simply to brainwash little kids into believing it.

It's funny that you should mention this. If you switch "evolution" to "god" or "religion" those would be my sentiments. This is really perspective and if one believes the point made. Evolution does not use songs to brainwash! :p Seriously, I would be more worried about an idea that is self-serving and unsupported (read: religion) being used than one that was strong enough to break through religious dogma of the time. What should be taught instead of evolution?


Ancalagon_The_Black

03-18-2005, 09:20 PM

Wow. reading SeanG's "farewell" thread is one of the earliest memories I have as an infoceptor forumer. This is strange indeed!

Anyways, proceed!


Gaidin

03-18-2005, 09:29 PM

1) Ancalagon: If you're not adding to the debate, don't post.

2) Fizban: Be civil or I'm having you banned.

::Re #2: Yes, your ice is getting thinner, so watch yourself. There are worse places than the dome::


PapaGeorgio

03-19-2005, 02:54 AM

Fiz, this post is for your educational growth. Take note of the many assumptions that are made in the C-14 radiometric dating method. These assumptions are the crumbling pillars of the method.~ CARBON 14 ~One major factor that is extremely important for C-14 dating to work properly: The standard mix of radiocarbon to ordinary carbon in the terrestrial reservoir must always have been the same throughout the lifetime of the test subject and in the years since its death. I will show that this one example undermines the entirety of the C-14 dating method… alone! This factor is what drove Willard Libby (the inventor of this method) to say that C-14 dating is only accurate within about three-thousand-years.

Take the case, for example, of archeologists setting out to determine the age of a Neolithic woman whose burial chamber they discover. If there had been a lot more carbon 14 around during the life of this early woman, the reading from her bones will be falsely inflated – she will appear a much more recent burial than she really was. Had there been a lot less radiocarbon around during her life, then the reading will appear falsely diminished and she will appear much older.

At the time Libby and his co-workers were developing the new technique [C-14 dating], in the 1940’s, they had every reason to believe that the amount of carbon 14 in the world could not have possibly have varied during the time that humankind had been on earth simply because the earth is of immense age, some 4,600 million years old. This great age stamps the radiocarbon technique with the seal of respectability because of what Libby called the “equilibrium value” for the radiocarbon reservoir.

After the earth was formed and acquired an atmosphere, there would be some 30,000-year transition period during which carbon 14 would be building up. At the end of that period, the amount of carbon 14 created by cosmic radiation will be balanced by the amount of carbon 14 decaying to almost zero. To use Libby’s terminology, “at the end of 30,000 years, the terrestrial radiocarbon reservoir will have reached steady state."

Since the earth, according to uniformitarian geology [which is what C-14 dating is based upon], is many, many times older that the 30,000 years needed to fill up the reservoir, then radiocarbon must unquestionably have attained equilibrium billions of years ago, and must have been constantly so throughout the few million years allotted to human history. To test this essential part of the theory, Libby made measurements of both the rate of formation and the rate of decay of radiocarbon. He found a considerable discrepancy in his measurements indicating that, apparently, radiocarbon was being created in the atmosphere somewhere around 25 percent faster than it was becoming extinct. Since this result was inexplicable by any conventional scientific means, Libby put the discrepancy down to mathematical error.

During the 1960’s, chemists, who had been able to refine their techniques after a decade or so of experience, repeated Libby’s experiments. The experiments demand almost heroic measures since the amounts of radiation involved are very small (only a few atomic disintegrations per second) and because of the need to screen out all other sources of radiation that would contaminate the result. The new experiments, though, revealed that the discrepancy observed by Libby was not merely experimental error – it did exist. It was found by Richard Lingenfelter that “There is strong indication, despite the large errors, that the present natural processes rate exceeds the natural decay rate by as much as 25 percent… it appears that equilibrium in the production and decay of carbon 14 may not be maintained in detail.”

Other researchers have confirmed this finding, including Hans Suess of the University of Southern California,, San Diego, writing in the Journal of Geophysical Research and V. R. Switzer writing in Science.

Melvin Cook, Professor of Metallurgy at Utah University, has reviewed the data (peer reviewed papers) of Suess and Lingenfelter and has reached the conclusion that the present rate of formation of carbon 14 is 18.4 atoms per gram per minute and the rate of decay 13.3 atoms per gram per minute, a ratio indicating that formation exceeds decay by some 38 percent.

The meaning of this discovery is described as follows by Cook: “This result has two alternate implications: either the atmosphere is for one reason or another in a transient build up stage as regards Carbon 14.... or else something is wrong in one or another of the basic postulates of the radiocarbon dating method.”


Cook has even gone one step further by taking the latest measured figures on radiocarbon formation and decay and calculating from them back to the point at which there would have been zero radiocarbon. In doing so, he is in effect using radiocarbon technique to date the earth’s own atmosphere. And the resulting calculation shows that, using Libby’s own data, the age of the atmosphere is around 10,000 years!

It is perfectly true that radiocarbon dating has been tried on objects whose age is independently known from archaeological sources and scored some impressive early successes. One of the very first artifacts to be tested was a wooden boat from an Egyptian pharaonic tomb whose age was independently known to be 3,750 years before the present. Radiocarbon assay produced the date of between 3,441 and 3,801 years, a minimum error of only 51 years. But after this promising start, the method quickly ran into difficulties. Anomalous dates were produced from later assays that showed that some living things may interact with parts of the reservoir that had been anomalously depleted of carbon 14 and thus appear to be much older than they really are.

Some recent cases make the point. Rock paintings found in the South African bush in 1991 were analyzed by Oxford University’s radiocarbon accelerator unit which dated them to be around 1,200 years old. This finding was significant because it meant the paintings would have been the first bushman painting found in open country [and probably meant more grants from the government for Oxford if this was so]. However, publicity of the find attracted the attention of Joan Ahrens, a Capetown resident, who recognized the paintings as being produced by her in art classes and later stolen from her garden by vandals. The significance of the incidents such as this is that mistakes can only be discovered in those rare cases where chance grants us some external method of checking the dating technique. Where no such external verification exists, we have simply to accept the verdict of carbon dating.

The position resulting from these anomalous discoveries was summarized by Hole and Heizer in their Introduction to Prehistoric Archaeology:“For a number of years it was thought that the possible errors… were of relatively minor consequence, but more recent intensive research into radiocarbon dates, compared with calendar dates, shows that the natural concentration of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere has varied sufficiently to affect dates significantly for certain periods. Because scientists have not been able to predict the amount of variation theoretically, it has been necessary to find a parallel dating method of absolute accuracy to assess the correlation between Carbon 14 dates and the calendar.”The parallel dating method turned to in order to assess radiocarbon dating involves that strange tree, the bristlecone pine, which grows at high altitudes in the mountains of California and Nevada and is the oldest living thing on Earth – some specimens are 5,000[+] years old.


Most of the above is an excerpt from Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, by Richard Milton (an atheist).


PapaGeorgio

03-19-2005, 03:30 AM

Knight of Dawn,

The trilobite eye is the most complicated eye man knows of. According to your own admission, this shouldn’t have been in this Cambrian explosion. Not to mention a few examples of manmade [and parts] items below.

Pre-Cambrian
http://ufologie.net/pics/transvaalsphere.jpg

Pennsylvanian
http://www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/ironpot/CoalPot1_300.jpg

Cretaceous
http://www.creationevidence.org/museum_tour/finger/finger_1.jpg
I would appreciate your input on this. I am already expecting the pat answers I usually get, so I have gotten my National Enquirer out in lieu of them.


Fizban

03-19-2005, 03:45 AM

Like I said, I kinda washed my hands of this but frozen was just too large of a target.

Carbon dating is accurate within 3,000 years, not 1000bc to today, 3,000 give or take depending on the method used. At least that's how I've interpreted it, ohwell.


Frozen

03-19-2005, 11:30 AM

What should be taught instead of evolution?

Science.

Neither Creation or Evolution should be taught. Children should be allowed to grow up and find their own answers through their own research.


Knight of Dawn

03-19-2005, 04:20 PM

PapaG- Could you explain what each of the items are and the connection? I'm not trying to be a hassle, but I need a bit of an explaination for the...pots? Please post more information, I don't have a lot of time at the moment to research and cannot respond until Monday.

Frozen- I don't see that happening (I am a realist.) A vast majority of people are not looking for themselves. If evolution is the most supported THEORY, then why shouldn't it be taught?


Frozen

03-19-2005, 08:47 PM

Frozen- I don't see that happening (I am a realist.) A vast majority of people are not looking for themselves. If evolution is the most supported THEORY, then why shouldn't it be taught?

Then let it be a taught as a theory, not as a fact. Let it be optional, not forced.


PapaGeorgio

03-20-2005, 11:29 AM

Lets try the problem before you Knight like this:Which one of the following items are man made and which ones are found in nature?
1)

http://www.backcountrydepot.homestead.com/files/whitescottsbluff.gif

2)

http://physics.uwstout.edu/geo/gallery/frothy_obsidian.jpg

3)

http://www.backcountrydepot.homestead.com/files/WOLF.gif

4)

http://www.alaska-freegold.com/akpromina/thumbs/em2_t.jpg

5)

http://www.wilsonswebdesign.com/ufo/images/photos/spheres.gif


PapaGeorgio

03-20-2005, 12:14 PM

I thought this article was timely:
"IMAX steers clear of Darwin's theory"
http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43390


Knight of Dawn

03-21-2005, 01:13 PM

Then let it be a taught as a theory, not as a fact. Let it be optional, not forced.

Yes, the Theory of Evolution should be taught as a theory. Agreed. Optional? No. How would you leave the "orgin of life" out of a Biology class? It doesn't make any sense. Why would you not have to learn about a logical and supported theory that could be correct? Is it just because it does not fit with your religious beliefs? Or do you just not care? This is science for Christ's Sake! :kh:

Something that I did not have time to respond to...

The trilobite eye is the most complicated eye man knows of. According to your own admission, this shouldn’t have been in this Cambrian explosion.


Just because the fossil record is incomplete, the Theory of Evolution still holds, since it is an interpertation of the data available [...] but until I see a eukaryotic fossil before a prokaryotic fossil it retains a certain amount of legitimacy.

What was my own admission? Complex before simple? I don't know what happened then, there could have been something that caused the explosion, I just don't know. I do know what makes sense, and that there hasn't been a eukaryotic cell before a prokaryotic cell. Not that I know of. Hypothetically if the eye was extremely complex there would be some form of precursor to it. I suppose that question could be answered if there was a complete fossil record, for or against evolution.

PS- The question of what each of the items is seems to be a lure into intelligent design. I don't know, I wouldn't be qualified to say what each is. I could only guess based on what I've seen before. Here it goes...

1- Natural
2- Natural
3- Natural
4- Natural
5- Man made


PapaGeorgio

03-21-2005, 02:24 PM

Knight, when you said: This is science for Christ's Sake!You are wrong, and confusing working science (the atomic weight of something, or the chemical makeup of another thing), with a scientists assumption: I will expound on origin science and the assumptions it makes (the capitalization is in the original from the source).Evolution Is still (even after 150 years):UNKNOWN CHEMICALS in the primordial past … through UNKNOWN PROCESS… which no longer exist… produced… UNKNOWN LIFE FORMS which are not to be found… but could, through… UNKNOWN REPRODUCTION METHODS spawn new life… in an… UNKNOWN ATMOSPHERE COMPOSITION… in an… UNKNOWN OCEANIC SOUP COMPLEX [now bubbling clay]… at an… UNKNOWN TIME and PLACE!!This is not science.


Manmade
Nature
Manmade
Nature
Manmade

However, while the other manmade items are found in their respective strata, the last manmade item, was found in the pre-Cambrian, dated at (assuming evolutionary geological ages to be correct) 2.8 billion years old. Any thoughts?


Frozen

03-21-2005, 02:34 PM

Yes, the Theory of Evolution should be taught as a theory. Agreed. Optional? No. How would you leave the "orgin of life" out of a Biology class? It doesn't make any sense. Why would you not have to learn about a logical and supported theory that could be correct? Is it just because it does not fit with your religious beliefs? Or do you just not care?

If you're going to write about the origin of life, then present ALL theories, not just one. Not that evolution is a logical, supported theory. Supported yes, but only in words, not facts. There are no facts supporting The Big Bang, forming of the planets, evolution from kind to kind (Like cat to dog, not species to species. Micro-Evolution is real, yes, but macro-evolution is not), and origin of life itself.

My religion is not taught in school, nor do I believe it should be. Your religion is, and that is wrong.

This is science for Christ's Sake!

No. This is not science.

sci·ence
n.

The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.
Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

Evolution is not observed, nor experimented.

It is not science.


Pangloss

03-21-2005, 08:12 PM

Frozen, I have not seen a definition of evolution you agree with. Could you kindly draw out your understanding of the concept?

As for creationism as a whole, I like to turn to old Kant. He pointed out there were two ways of thinking:
A priori: Things that we can just think about in our mind that does not require any perceptual experience as a basis, nor can experience shed any light on the answer. Eg: 2+2=4, truth is absolute.
A posteriori: Things we need to have perceptual experience to think about. Eg: the door is brown.
Then there are two kinds of claims one can make:
Analytic Claims: Claims that attribute a quality to an object that the object has by the nature of being that object: eg: an immortal cannot die.
Synthetic Claims: Claims that attribute a quality to an object but can only be proved by referring to our experience to assess their truth. eg: the door is brown.

Now, there are then 4 types of knowledge:
A priori Analytic claims: They're fine. Lots of philosophy, and a lot of maths. 2+2=4 and the like.
A posteriori synthetic claims: These are fine. Observations and science deal with these.
A posteriori Analytic claims: These claims are impossible. One cannot relate something to experience external to experience.
A priori synthetic claims: These claims are the problems of human thought. What we do when when we use these claims is attribute something to a concept it is impossible to have any experience of with things that are not logically related to them. eg: God has brown hair, Creationism is X (where X is beyond "the belief that a deity created the world).

So what we now have, with creationism, is a knowledge that we can, by it being an a priori Synthetic claim, absolutely no scientific knowledge for or of. It is simply a matter of faith. Which is fine. In cases such as this, it is perfectly alright to put a good deal of decision down to faith.

But then we move on to James William's point about science. As much as science is observable, it can never be completely understood as there will always be things that cannot observe (eg: what an atom looks like to the human eye as it is smaller than light). So now we have a problem. If at every stage in scientific development we appreciate we still know all estimates are wrong, and if at every stage we act on that, we could not build or do anything. Although scientists seem to have a good explanation of how planes fly, they don't know. If we were worried about what we know then no-one would have built planes. So now we can come back to creationism and evolution. Creationism is fine, but it doesn't effect anything. It doesn't effect science. Evolution on the other hand, though not knowable, seems to make sense in a lot of areas. We don't know it's right, but just like Newton's Laws (which are in fact wrong, but we still use them), it's useful to talk about when it comes down to it because it allows us to further progress into better knowledge.

So what does this mean to the argument? Not a great deal. It ties up some loose ends. In science classes around the world it makes sense to teach evolution, but not creationism. It makes sense to use evolution in scientific study, but not creationism. Pretty much, it makes sense to consider evolution in every sense, and creationism in none, to the point that the only time it's worth talking about creationism is when we want to be truly right about the origins of the universe. But, as explained above, creationism can never be known, qua it being creationism, so, even on it's last leg, it looks pretty flimsy.


PapaGeorgio

03-22-2005, 05:23 AM

Pangloss,

Why bring up Kant? Kant was one of the most illogical thinkers of his day. His brand of agnosticism is so self-defeating it makes my head spin!

For instance: Kant argued that categories of thought do not apply to reality, because we can’t know what reality is. This argument is also self-defeating for two reasons.
Unless the categories of reality corresponded to those of the mind, no statements could be made about reality, including the very statement Kant made.

To say that one cannot know any more than the limits of the phenomena or appearance is to draw an unsurpassable line for those limits. But you cannot draw such firm limits without surpassing them. It is not possible to contend that appearance ends here and reality beings there unless one can see at least some distance on the other side. In other words, how can one know the difference between appearance and reality unless he already knows both so as to make the comparison. (em-phasis mine)

from: http://www.truthnet.org/pdf/Apologetics/2istruthobjective.pdf
A great article by the way, for those who wish to read a well thought out and philosophically cogent piece!


Pangloss

03-22-2005, 05:29 AM

I agree with you about Kant, he had some pretty twisted opinions, but that doesn't mean he was all wrong. So I'll address these fairly ad absurdium arguments.

From the first, this is an oversimplification of Kant. He says we can never truly know anything as it is in itself. The Platonic Form of it, if you like. I think that's fair enough. But that doesn't mean we can't make any statements about reality. As I said, just like science cannot give complete insight into anything, what it can do is damn close, and, pragmatically, just as good. That's what Kant was trying to say.

As to the second point, Kant can give examples of things were perception and reality are completely incompatible. Freedom, God and immortality were his examples. Considering you believe in these as well, I think you'll have to agree with Kany that there are both perceptible things and inperceptible things.


Frozen

03-22-2005, 08:26 PM

Frozen, I have not seen a definition of evolution you agree with. Could you kindly draw out your understanding of the concept?

There are 6 meanings (parts) of Evolution.

1. Cosmic Evolution - The origin of time, space, and matter. (The Big Bang)

2. Chemical Evolution - The origin of higher elements from Hydrogen.

3. Stellar and Planetary Evolution - Origin of stars and planets.

4. Organic Evolution - Origin of life.

5. Macro-Evolution - Changing from one kind of plant or animal into another. (Dog to Cat)

6. Micro-Evolution - Variation between kinds. (Pit bull, Beagle, Pug, etc.)

There is absolutely no proof for the first 5. They are purely theoretical*.

*Edited to make Gaidin stop whining on aim


Gaidin

03-22-2005, 08:36 PM

There is absolutely no proof for the first 5. They are purely religious.
Inherently wrong wording on your part meant to incite(either purposefully or accidentally) bias against the first five. I believe the word you're looking for is Theoretical.


Frozen

03-22-2005, 11:35 PM

Inherently wrong wording on your part meant to incite(either purposefully or accidentally) bias against the first five. I believe the word you're looking for is Theoretical.

If you take the literal meaning of religion to be a belief in a god or diety, then yes, but if you also believe Scientology is a real religion then you must allow for other things to be religion even if they do not worship a specific god.

Lets not forget that all religion is based on faith and not fact.

Evolution is based on faith. People don't think of Evolution as a theory, they think it as fact. It is taught as fact.

I'll give you an example:

This (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/grand/index.html) was the first website I found when I did a simple yahoo search for "evolution".

The article I've linked to is one dealing with Intelligent Design.

It seems all fine and nice, and keeps with the "this isn't fact" form, but read. My comments are in red.


A concept known as "intelligent design" (ID) has been used as an argument against Darwinism from the publication of On the Origin of Species in 1859 right up to the present day. Quite simply, ID states that living organisms must be the product of careful and conscious design, so perfectly formed that they cannot be explained by the random workings of evolution alone. Modern ID theorists contend that this is a new and novel scientific alternative to evolution. (so far so good)

ID, however, has been rejected by the modern scientific community for the same reasons that it failed in the 19th century. When closely examined, the living world is filled with evidence that complex organisms not only could have evolved through evolution's trial-and-error mechanism, but must have done so(and here we have it folks, he just stated it as fact and not a theory), because their structure, their physiology, and even their genetic makeup are all inconsistent with the demands of intelligent design.

But MUST have done so. We just left science and entered faith/belief/religion/whatever word you want to use for it.

He goes on to explain how the eye does not prove Intelligent Design, but instead Evolution. What he fails to do though, is prove Evolution.

Let me explain myself:

The pathway by which evolution can produce complex structures has been brilliantly explained in The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins, a biologist at Oxford University. The essence of Dawkins’s explanation is simple. Given enough time (thousands of years) and material (millions of individuals in a species), many genetic changes will occur that result in slight improvements in a system or structure such as the eye. However slight that improvement, as long as it is genuine, natural selection will favor its spread throughout the species over several generations.

Richard Dawkins comes to the conclusion (in bold) that given time, we get better. I don't know how you see it, but I'd say the human race is prime example of massive downgrade.

Highschool test score averages get worse every year. People are dying every day in the masses from aids, cancer, and other such diseases. People rely on pills to carry out the day. Depression is becoming one of the most popular diagnoses.

This is progress?

The article continues on to say how Natural Selection proves evolution and falsifies Intelligent Design, BUT it in no way proves that we came from rocks (which is what evolution teaches).

Natural Selection is NOT evolution.

He then says that the human eye is not "perfect" and hence Intelligent Design is no good.

I could use that same logic to "prove" the Christian religion is right and Evolution is wrong.

The Bible teaches the Fall of Man. From Adam's sin until present day man has been on a constant downgrade. That's evident in today's society as compared to just 50 years ago. Watch tv for 30 minutes and I guarentee you will see at least 3 commercials for anxiety, depression, aids, cancer, heart disease, and other such problems of the sort.

So I propose that because society is getting worse, Creation must be true! Go ahead, tell me I'm wrong. I expect it, but that's exactly the logic being used in Kenneth R. Miller's essay, found on the very first website shown on my yahoo search for evolution, being used for education!

Yet you want me to believe that Evolution is taught as nothing more than a theory?

No no my friends. It is not. It is taught as fact.

Go ahead and search that site for a counter essay. You will not find one.


Let me go one step further, let me counter the very first statement made in that same website's flash called Deep Time (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/change/deeptime/index.html).

It states the following:

"To understand evolution, humans must think in much larger units of time than those we use to define our lives. After all, evolutionary change isn't apparent in days, months, and years. Instead, it is documented in layers and layers of rock deposited over 4.6 billion years."

What they're refering to here is the geologic column. Obvious because the next sentence goes on to say "The stretch of geologic history..."

The simplest counter to the Geologic column is polystrate fossils (http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm). Fossils of trees that extend straight up through multiple layers of stone. The only counter I've read is that the layers "must have been soft."

So to "prove" that polystrate fossils are not in conflict with evolution a bend in the rules is made by saying "the beds of rock must have been soft, and the trees must have grown there." (a "proof" formed by John William Dawson)

No proof of this is actually shown. It is simply a conclusion made up in Dawson's mind, and Dawson is basically concluding that the trees must have been standing for millions of years as the rock beds formed around them. I can't think of a single tree that has died and stood for longer than ten years.

And even now, if you're convinced that Evolution is taught purely as theory and not fact, go watch an episode of Bill Nye: The Science Guy. If it's not obvious for you then, only one conclusion can be made: You are going blind (probably from your "inperfect" eye issues) and in dire need of an eye doctor's appointment.


PapaGeorgio

03-23-2005, 02:38 AM

In 1998 the National Academy of Sciences published and distributed a book to public schools entitled Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science. This publication was designed to persuade and assist teachers to present the theory of evolution as fact. I know, cause I “persuaded” my sons principle to make me a copy of the thing. They teach it at the second grade level as fact. I will give a few of a hundred or so quotes I have on the subject.American Society of Parasitologists: “Evolution is believed by nearly all professional life scientists. Virtually all scientists accept the evolution of currant species from fewer, simpler, ancestral ones as undisputed fact.”

North Carolina Academy of Science: “Evolution is an established law of nature.”

Society for Amateur Scientists: “That life has adapted and changed through time is as well established as the fact that the earth goes around the sun.”

Society of Vertebrate Paleontology: “Evolution has come to be regarded as a confirmed fact, as certain as the drift of continents through time or the lawful operation of gravity… Scientists do not argue about whether evolution took place, that is a fact.”Similar statements are made by the Academy of Science of the Royal Society of Canada; Alabama Academy of Science; American Association of Physical Anthropologists; American Astronomical Society; American Chemical Society; American Geological Institute; American Geophysical Union; American Physical Society; American Psychological Association; American Society for Biological Chemists; California Academy of Science; Iowa Academy of Science; Kentucky Academy of Science; Louisiana Academy of Science; National Academy of Sciences; New York Academy of Sciences; Society for the Study of Evolution; Southern Anthropological Society; and the West Virginia Academy of Science, as well as numerous educational, religious, and civil liberties organizations.

So you see, I have shown that true laws have been said to be universal – i.e., Second Law of Thermodynamics. As well as the scientific community saying that evolution is a fact, or law, when evolution is neither repeatable nor observable in the sense that true science demands laws and theories to be. This is why in an earlier post I made sure it was understood that evolution should be, and rightly so, considered an hypothesis.


Fizban

03-25-2005, 02:47 AM

Frozen you can't hold evolution responsible for how people percieve it. It's like saying that christians don't read the old testiment because they're no jewish, sure a lot of people don't read the bible and claim to be christians but this is just an example of blind faith, blind faith can be placed anywhere, but it doesn't make it a religion.

There are people who try and turn evolution into a religion, but that totally defeats the purpose and as such they stop dealing with science, you cannot consider what these people twist evolution into as evolution. It'd be like me saying that christians are evil because of the catholics, or the religious persecution. You don't persecute because of religion do you? My point exactly (if you do this might be lost to you).


PapaGeorgio

03-26-2005, 02:01 PM

Fiz,

When you say There are people who try and turn evolution into a religion, but that totally defeats the purpose and as such they stop dealing with science,Evolution and science are not synonymous. Again, can you give me one example of evolution that is scientific. For example,Even Gould admits [1]….. “although I wear the Darwinian label with some pride, [ I ] am not among the most ardent defenders of natural selection.” More blunt is Bethell [2] who concludes, “Darwin’s theory [of natural selection] I believe is on the verge of collapse…. Natural selection was quietly abandoned, even by his most ardent supports, some years ago.” Gould, in an article [3] defending natural selection admits that, “Bethel argues quite correctly that [Darwin] relied upon analogy to establish it [his definition of survival of the fittest] a dangerous and slippery strategy.” yet, many scientists are still struggling not only to define it, but also to demonstrate that it has a role in megaevolution [4].

The assumption that all life and all of its traits owe their existence primarily to natural selection, thus these traits must be adaptive, is still supported primarily by thought demonstrations. Natural selection explanations are often similar to dream interpretations: the explanations may be logical and fully understandable, yet there is no way to empirically document [scientifically] it. The logic that any particular character was or might be adaptive was regarded by many as sufficient proof that it owes its origin to natural selection, but this evolutionary speculation has few connection with the concrete facts of cytology and heredity or with actual experimentation.

From the Jerry Bergman paper I linked earlier.[list]
[1] Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin, p. 39.

[2] Tom Bethel, Darwin’s Mistake.

[3] Stephen J. Gould, Ever Since Darwin, p. 40-41.

[3] John Maddox (1991), “Is Darwinism a Thermodynamic necessity?" Nature. 350:653.So, Fiz, can you give me an example of evolution that isn’t a thought experiment based on circular reasoning, or man’s interpretation of the missing facts? I am waiting youngster.


Another example from the paper I just quoted is about how natural selection explains – for example – the selecting of the Sabber Tooth Tigers elongated teeth, and then selection also selecting the same Tiger to die because it couldn’t open its mouth wide enough to eat. A theory that explains everything is not a theory at all.


Gaidin

03-26-2005, 07:20 PM

Georgio...get it through your thick skull. Evolution is a Scientific Theory. If you want to prove it's a religion, show me the religous infrastructure it has. I don't give a damn about beliefs here. I want the INFRASTRUCTURE that all religions have.

You have some people that give it enough faith that there beliefs in evolution can easily be compared to those of religious beliefs. But they are not religous beliefs and dont even begin to structure into a religion. And thus we have the difference between simile and metaphor. The resurection is a religous belief. Evolution is occasionally treated like a religous belief, BUT IS NOT.


PapaGeorgio

03-27-2005, 09:46 AM

Naturalism - Gaiden - is a metaphysical construct? Do you not agree with that?

Take note that I didn't - in the above post - mention it [evolution] as a religion. I merely asked for an example of evolution that is scientific. Gaiden failed to answer what would seem to be an easy question, if, in fact, evolution is scientific... and not "scientism." Instead of giving an example that shows the science behind evolution, he chose to take the conversation towards religion. Popper and Ruse already spoke to the philosophical naturalism inherent in the evolutionary theory of origins. But to simply deny this definition because these two are "philosophers," is a route that few take, as some have in this strain. ("They are philosophers, therefore, what they say is not relevant," is, probably, one of the dumbest things I have heard yet - not impugning Gaiden here.)

Do you wish, Gaiden, that I give you an example from my son’s science book his state (California) makes him learn in seventh grade?

Not only is his state to blame, but the teachers and the teachers union are also guilty of simply regurgitating what they are told to teach (much like in Animal Farm and 1984), when they should be saying… “you know, for over 100 years scientists have known this example to be wrong, why not mention this to these kids when we come to this section in the book. I should mention it as I am not answerable to the State, but to the parents that are paying my salary.”


Gaidin

03-27-2005, 01:04 PM

So, let me get this straight. For your past five posts, you've been telling me that they're teaching something as fact that can only be regarded as theory. Which is something I've stood by for your past twenty posts.

You really need a new high chair in this arguement, because you're regurgitating things that I argued many threads ago, as well as on other forums, when you werent even posting here.



And dammit....it's GAIDIN...


PapaGeorgio

03-28-2005, 12:26 AM

No, Gaidin, ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, peppered moths, fossil-horse series, and all the other evidences that are taught as fact in my son’s seventh-grade “science” textbook are not theory, they are “thought demonstrations… similar to dream interpretations.”They aren’t theory or hypothesis;they have been rejected for many, many years (in some cases, a hundred years) by the evolutionary community of scientists.

Is there any evidence that you wish to discuss that is a scientific proof for evolution? In fact, I bet you view the evidence different than the specialists in their particular field.


Gaidin

03-28-2005, 12:30 AM

Theory: An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.

Evolution is a theory. It may be taught as a fact when it should not be. That is all. Get yourself a new arguement, this is old.


Fizban

03-28-2005, 01:20 AM

Papa, just because something is taught one way doesn't mean that's the way it is. We're in America I mean you've got to expect idiots with near absolute freedom, it's a given. The way that people do it doesn’t have any effect on the way it actually is, and such it doesn’t help you argument.

Now Creationism is a guess based on no information other than people (*points to first paragraph*) though you can approach it scientifically, it’s not scientific because it’s not natural phenomena.

Evolution is a guess based on information (though limited enough to keep it out of the proved level), though you can approach it religiously, it’s not a religion because it’s natural phenomena, it’s explained with no supernatural or metaphysical answers. I suppose you can go back and say well what started the universe and these chemicals and put these laws into effect blah blah, where’s the transition fossils. But we don’t know that yet (which is the only reason why it’s not scientific law yet) because of our limited understanding of genetics we may find out that a single little change in the genetic structure, addition or subtraction is enough to completely change the creature.

We hardly understand our own planet, let alone our solar system or our universe, life at this point could be mechanical or really we could have a soul, a leap of faith is required. We choose to grab the first ledge that’s offered, one with substance and grounding; you choose to remain falling expecting to be caught by the will of some intelligent force. Our ledge moves closer and closer to reality to plausibilit, while religion drifts further and further away.

Our ledge could crumble before it ever reaches that position, true, but yours may never come.

Evolution is not a religion. Creation is not a science. It's final and you cannot change that, by the very definitions of our language.

Intelligent design does not belong in the classroom because it is religion, that is our constitution, it's unlikely you can change that.

Now can we end the argument on whether Evolution is a religion and get back to the main point?

Creationism. What are the theories that SUPPORT it (which cannot be disproven and are not fallacies of subjectivity) and make it at least as likely as evolution if not more so?


PapaGeorgio

03-28-2005, 02:54 AM

Gaidin, what is a theory?theo·ry n. a formulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain observed phenomena which have been verified to some degree.

sci·ence n. 1 the state or fact of knowledge 2 systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation carried on in order to determine the nature or principles of what is being studied

nat·u·ral·ism n. philos. the belief that the natural world, as explained by scientific laws, is all that exists and that there is no supernatural or spiritual creation, control, or significance

http://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.asp


What do some say of this theory?
"Evolution [is] a theory universally accepted not because it can be proven by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
(Professor D.M.S. Watson, leading biologist and science writer of his day.)

"There is the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form. This theory can be called the "general theory of evolution," and the evidence which supports this is not sufficiently strong to allow us to consider it as anything more than a working hypothesis."
(Dr. G. A. Kerkut evolutionist)

"9/10 of the talk of evolution is sheer nonsense not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by fact. This Museum is full of proof of the utter falsity of their view."
(Dr. Ethredge, British Museum of Science.)


"Hypothesis [evolution] based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts....These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely complex and intricate mass of facts, and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily, and for such a long time, by so many scientists without a murmur of protest."
(Sir Ernst Chan, Nobel Prize winner for developing penicillin)

"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose; one is spontaneous generation arising to evolution, the other is a supernatural creative act of God, there is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with only one possible conclusion, that life arose as a creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God, therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution."
(Dr. George Wald, evolutionist, Professor Emeritus of Biology at the University at Harvard, Nobel Prize winner in Biology.)

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.....It is not even possible to make a caricature of an evolution out of paleobiological facts...The idea of an evolution rests on pure belief."
(Dr. Nils Heribert-Nilsson, noted Swedish botanist and geneticist, of Lund University)

"Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever! In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact."
(Dr. Newton Tahmisian, Atomic Energy Commission.)

"The pathetic thing about it is that many scientists are trying to prove the doctrine of evolution, which no science can do."
(Dr. Robert A. Milikan, physicist and Nobel Prize winner, speech before the American Chemical Society.)

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research but purely the product of the imagination."
(Albert Fleishman, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at Erlangen University)


"A growing number of respectable scientists are defecting from the evolutionist camp.....moreover, for the most part these "experts" have abandoned Darwinism, not on the basis of religious faith or biblical persuasions, but on strictly scientific grounds, and in some instances, regretfully."
(Dr. Wolfgang Smith, physicist and mathematician)

"It must be significant that nearly all the evolutionary stories I learned as a student....have now been debunked."
(Dr. Derek V. Ager, Department of Geology, Imperial College, London)

"Darwin's evolutionary explanation of the origins of man has been transformed into a modern myth, to the detriment of scientific and social progress.....The secular myths of evolution have had a damaging effect on scientific research, leading to distortion, to needless controversy, and to gross misuse of science....I mean the stories, the narratives about change over time. How the dinosaurs became extinct, how the mammals evolved, where man came from. These seem to me to be little more than story-telling." …

…"The explanation value of the evolutionary hypothesis of common origin is nil! Evolution not only conveys no knowledge, it seems to convey anti-knowledge. How could I work on evolution ten years and learn nothing from it? Most of you in this room will have to admit that in the last ten years we have seen the basis of evolution go from fact to faith! It does seem that the level of knowledge about evolution is remarkably shallow. We know it ought not be taught in high school, and that's all we know about it."
(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist and senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, which houses 60 million fossils)

"For myself, as, no doubt, for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The liberation we desired was simultaneously liberation from a certain political and economic system and liberation from a certain system of morality. We objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom."
(Aldous Huxley, Ends and Means)

"I suppose the reason we leaped at the origin of species was because the idea of God interfered with our sexual mores."
(Sir Julian Huxley, President of the United Nation's Educational, Scientific, Cultural Organization (UNESCO).)

"Evolution is unproved and improvable, we believe it because the only alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable."
(Sir Arthur Keith, a militant anti-Christian physical anthropologist)

"Evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless."
(Prof. Louis Bounoure, Director of Research, National Center of Scientific Research.)

"We have had enough of the Darwinian fallacy. It is time we cry, "The emperor has no clothes."
(Dr. Hsu, geologist at the Geological Institute in Zurich.)

"We have now the remarkable spectacle that just when many scientific men are agreed that there is no part of the Darwinian system that is of any great influence, and that, as a whole, the theory is not only unproved, but impossible, the ignorant, half-educated masses have acquired the idea that it is to be accepted as a fundamental fact."
(Dr. Thomas Dwight, famed professor at Harvard University)

"I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question, "How did this ever happen?"
(Dr. Sorren Luthrip, Swedish Embryologist)

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based upon faith alone; exactly the same sort of faith which is necessary to have when one encounters the great mysteries of religion....The only alternative is the doctrine of special creation, which may be true, but irrational."
(Dr. Louis T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"Evolution is faith, a religion."
(Dr. Louist T. More, professor of paleontology at Princeton University)

"In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion; almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to "bend" their observations to fit in with it."
(H.S. Lipson, Physicist Looks at Evolution, Physics Bulletin 31 (1980), p. 138)

"When students of other sciences ask us what is now currently believed about the origin of species, we have no clear answer to give. Faith has given way to agnosticism. Meanwhile, though our faith in evolution stands unshaken we have no acceptable account of the origin of species."
(Dr. William Bateson, great geneticist of Cambridge)

"Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result is a fantasia which is neither history nor science."
(Dr. James Conant [chemist and former president of Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1982, p. 2.)


PapaGeorgio

03-28-2005, 03:02 AM

Fiz, thank you for such a calm, coherent script to work with. I applaud you. Again, evolution is not science. And I agree with you on a point that you mentioned in passing. One of the best books written on the subject – I think – is a book entitled The Creation Hypothesis. Creation, or, Intelligent Design, is rightly called a hypothesis. The same goes for evolution.

And to say that the complexity we find in nature flies in the face of chance is not religious. Nor my son critiquing peppered moths, or the fossil horse series, or recapitulation in his science class is not religion either.

And you are wrong about the separation of religion in our Constitution.

Again, thank you for a calm and very coherent response.

PapaG


Knight of Dawn

03-28-2005, 03:26 PM

Yay, pages and pages of reading. All thanks to PapaG. who prefers letting others speak for him...

I side with Gaidin on this one, PapaG is too stubborn to realize that he is arguing to people that do not fit into the "religious evolutionist" role. I think that we have beaten this evolution horse to death, why don't we move on to Creationism and have a go at that?


Harbinger

03-28-2005, 06:51 PM

This isn't a proper SD post, but I have to wonder aloud at this extraordinarily appropriate moment, why it is so hard for people (especially over the internet) to simply say "That's information I hadn't considered, I think you're right."


Fizban

03-28-2005, 07:06 PM

Because information that's not for our point of view is rationalized for our point of view or rationalized as nothing, you do it too so don't tell us to touch the holes in your hands.

PapaG mind pointing out how I am wrong about religion in our constitution?

PapaG, evolution is a HYPOTHESIS because it can be tested (with the only constraints being time). It's obvious you won't accept anything I say to prove it's a theory, so I'll settle with the hypothesis, which is still SCIENTIFIC.

Creation is not a hypothesis as it IS NOT TESTABLE. Therefore unscientific no matter how scientifically you approach it.

Might I point out once again…

Creationism (ID) is PURELY RELIGIOUS; approaching it scientifically does not make it scientific.

Evolution is PURELY SCIENTIFIC; approaching it religiously does not make it religious.

I don't care what you say PapaG, as soon as you begin to deal with metaphysics, you cease being a scientist. Creation (ID) is built on metaphysics, and thus is unscientific no matter what you say. That is an unchangeable truth unless you by some fluke manage to change the definition science.

You've lost the debate on how evolution is a religion and creation is a science, move on please.


PapaGeorgio

03-28-2005, 11:24 PM

Fiz, once again, give me an example of how evolution can be tested? Because i no of no test that has showed the hypothesis to be even called a theory.

Intelligent Design is testable. God, I realize you are young, but read something that doesn’t agree with your point of view. And science was only changed – in definition – recently by naturalists late in the nineteenth century. I am merely wishing to bring it back to what these knew it to be, you know these guys, they are founders of todays science:

Absolute Temperature Scale - Lord William Kelvin
Acoustics - Lord John Rayleigh
Anesthesia - Sir James Simpson
Antiseptic Surgery - Joseph Lister
Bacteriology - Louis Pasteur
Biogenesis Law - Louis Pasteur
Calculating Machine - Charles Babbage
Calculus - Sir Isaac Newton
Celestial Mechanics - Johannes Kepler
Chemistry - Robert Boyle
Classification System - Carolus Linnaeus
Crystallography - Nicolaus Steno
Double Stars - Sir William & John Herschel
Dynamics - Sir Isaac Newton
Electric Generator - Michael Faraday
Electric Motor - Joseph Henry
Electro-Magnetics - Michael Faraday
Electrochemistry - Sir Humphry Davy
Electromagnetic Field Theory - James C. Maxwell
Electronics, Vacuum tubes - Sir John A. Fleming
Entomology of Living Insects - Jean Henri Fabre
Fluid Dynamics - Lord John Rayleigh
Fluid Mechanics - Sir George Stokes
Galactic Astronomy - Sir William Herschel
Galvanometer - Joseph Henry
Gas Dynamics - Robert Boyle
Gas Dynamics - James C. Maxwell
Genetics - Gregor Mendel
Geodesy - Sir George Stokes
Glacial Geology - Louis Agassiz
Gynecology - Sir James Simpson
Hydraulics - Leonardo da Vinci
Hydrodynamics - Blaise Pascal
Inert Gases - Sir William Ramsay
Law of Gravity - Sir Isaac Newton
Natural History - Louis Agassiz
Non-Euclidean Geometry - Bernhard Riemann
Oceanography - Matthew Maury
Optical Mineralogy - Sir David Brewster
Pasteurization - Louis Pasteur
Pathology - Rudolf Virchow
Physical Astronomy - Johannes Kepler
Polarized Light - Sir David Brewster
Reflecting Telescope - Sir Isaac Newton
Scientific Method - Lord Francis Bacon
Systematic Biology - Carolus Linnaeus
Telegraph - Samuel Morse
Thermodynamics - James Joule
Thermodynamics - Lord William Kelvin
Transatlantic Cable - Lord William Kelvin
Vaccination and Immunization - Louis Pasteur
Vertebrate Paleontology - Georges CuvierI guess all these scientists who founded the scientific disciplines of today aren’t really scientists… Hmm. How about these cats: Henry F. Schaefer: Nobel Nominee, Director, Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
Fred Sigworth: Prof. of Cellular & Molecular Physiology- Grad. School: Yale U.
Philip S. Skell: Emeritus Prof. Of Chemistry: NAS member
Frank Tipler: Prof. of Mathematical Physics: Tulane U.
Robert Kaita: Plasma Physics Lab: Princeton U.
Michael Behe: Prof. of Biological Science: Lehigh U.
Walter Hearn: PhD Biochemistry-U of Illinois
Tony Mega: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
Dean Kenyon: Prof. Emeritus of Biology: San Francisco State U.
Marko Horb: Researcher, Dept. of Biology & Biochemistry: U. of Bath, UK
Daniel Kubler: Asst. Prof. of Biology: Franciscan U. of Steubenville
David Keller: Assoc. Prof. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
James Keesling: Prof. of Mathematics: U. of Florida
Roland F. Hirsch: PhD Analytical Chemistry-U. of Michigan
Robert Newman: PhD Astrophysics-Cornell U.
Carl Koval: Prof., Chemistry & Biochemistry: U. of Colorado, Boulder
Tony Jelsma: Prof. of Biology: Dordt College
William A.Dembski: PhD Mathematics-U. of Chicago:
George Lebo: Assoc. Prof. of Astronomy: U. of Florida
Timothy G. Standish: PhD Environmental Biology-George Mason U.
James Keener: Prof. of Mathematics & Adjunct of Bioengineering: U. of Utah
Robert J. Marks: Prof. of Signal & Image Processing: U. of Washington
Carl Poppe: Senior Fellow: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
Siegfried Scherer: Prof. of Microbial Ecology: Technische Universität München
Gregory Shearer: Internal Medicine, Research: U. of California, Davis
Joseph Atkinson: PhD Organic Chemistry-M.I.T.: American Chemical Society, member
Lawrence H. Johnston: Emeritus Prof. of Physics: U. of Idaho
Scott Minnich: Prof., Dept of Microbiology, Molecular Biology & Biochem: U. of Idaho
David A. DeWitt: PhD Neuroscience-Case Western U.
Theodor Liss: PhD Chemistry-M.I.T.
Braxton Alfred: Emeritus Prof. of Anthropology: U. of British Columbia
Walter Bradley: Prof. Emeritus of Mechanical Engineering: Texas A & M
Paul D. Brown: Asst. Prof. of Environmental Studies: Trinity Western U. (Canada)
Marvin Fritzler: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Calgary, Medical School
Theodore Saito: Project Manager: Lawrence Livermore Laboratories
Muzaffar Iqbal: PhD Chemistry-U. of Saskatchewan: Center for Theology the Natural Sciences
William S. Pelletier: Emeritus Distinguished Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Georgia, Athens
Keith Delaplane: Prof. of Entomology: U. of Georgia
Ken Smith: Prof. of Mathematics: Central Michigan U.
Clarence Fouche: Prof. of Biology: Virginia Intermont College
Thomas Milner: Asst. Prof. of Biomedical Engineering: U. of Texas, Austin
Brian J.Miller: PhD Physics-Duke U.
Paul Nesselroade: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Simpson College
Donald F.Calbreath: Prof. of Chemistry: Whitworth College
William P. Purcell: PhD Physical Chemistry-Princeton U.
Wesley Allen: Prof. of Computational Quantum Chemistry: U. of Georgia
Jeanne Drisko: Asst. Prof., Kansas Medical Center: U. of Kansas, School of Medicine
Chris Grace: Assoc. Prof. of Psychology: Biola U.
Wolfgang Smith: Prof. Emeritus-Mathematics: Oregon State U.
Rosalind Picard: Assoc. Prof. Computer Science: M.I.T.
Garrick Little: Senior Scientist, Li-Cor: Li-Cor
John L. Omdahl: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of New Mexico
Martin Poenie: Assoc. Prof. of Molecular Cell & Developmental Bio: U. of Texas, Austin
Russell W.Carlson: Prof. of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology: U. of Georgia
Hugh Nutley: Prof. Emeritus of Physics & Engineering: Seattle Pacific U.
David Berlinski: PhD Philosophy-Princeton: Mathematician, Author
Neil Broom: Assoc. Prof., Chemical & Materials Engineeering: U. of Auckland
John Bloom: Assoc. Prof., Physics: Biola U.
James Graham: Professional Geologist, Sr. Program Manager: National Environmental Consulting Firm
John Baumgardner: Technical Staff, Theoretical Division: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Fred Skiff: Prof. of Physics: U. of Iowa
Paul Kuld: Assoc. Prof., Biological Science: Biola U.
Yongsoon Park: Senior Research Scientist: St. Luke's Hospital, Kansas City
Moorad Alexanian: Prof. of Physics: U. of North Carolina, Wilmington
Donald Ewert: Director of Research Administration: Wistar Institute
Joseph W. Francis: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Cedarville U.
Thomas Saleska: Prof. of Biology: Concordia U.
Ralph W. Seelke: Prof. & Chair of Dept. of Biology & Earth Sciences: U. of Wisconsin, Superior
James G. Harman: Assoc. Chair, Dept. of Chemistry & Biochemistry: Texas Tech U.
Lennart Moller: Prof. of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institute: U. of Stockholm
Raymond G. Bohlin: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology-U. of Texas:
Fazale R. Rana: PhD Chemistry-Ohio U.
Michael Atchison: Prof. of Biochemistry: U. of Pennsylvania, Vet School
William S. Harris: Prof. of Basic Medical Sciences: U. of Missouri, Kansas City
Rebecca W. Keller: Research Prof., Dept. of Chemistry: U. of New Mexico
Terry Morrison: PhD Chemistry-Syracuse U.
Robert F. DeHaan: PhD Human Development-U. of Chicago
Matti Lesola: Prof., Laboratory of Bioprocess Engineering: Helsinki U. of Technology
Bruce Evans: Assoc. Prof. of Biology: Huntington College
Jim Gibson: PhD Biology-Loma Linda U.
David Ness: PhD Anthropology-Temple U.
Bijan Nemati: Senior Engineer: Jet Propulsion Lab (NASA)
Edward T. Peltzer: Senior Research Specialist: Monterey Bay Research Institute
Stan E. Lennard: Clinical Assoc. Prof. of Surgery: U. of Washington
Rafe Payne: Prof. & Chair, Biola Dept. of Biological Sciences: Biola U.
Phillip Savage: Prof. of Chemical Engineering: U. of Michigan
Pattle Pun: Prof. of Biology: Wheaton College
Jed Macosko: Postdoctoral Researcher-Molecular Biology: U. of California, Berkeley
Daniel Dix: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: U. of South Carolina
Ed Karlow: Chair, Dept. of Physics: LaSierra U.
James Harbrecht: Clinical Assoc. Prof.: U. of Kansas Medical Center
Robert W. Smith: Prof. of Chemistry: U. of Nebraska, Omaha
Robert DiSilvestro: PhD Biochemistry-Texas A & M U.
David Prentice: Prof., Dept. of Life Sciences: Indiana State U.
Walt Stangl: Assoc. Prof. of Mathematics: Biola U.
Jonathan Wells: PhD Molecular & Cell Biology- U. of California, Berkeley:
James Tour: Chao Prof. of Chemistry: Rice U.
Todd Watson: Asst. Prof. of Urban & Community Forestry: Texas A &am



Biological Scientists Who Are Creationists (small list)
Duane Gish, Ph.D. Biochemistry (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from UCLA and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of California (Berkeley). He spent a total of 18 years in biochemical research; with Cornell University Medical College (NYC), with the Virus Laboratory, U of Cal-Berkley and and on the research staff of the Upjohn Pharmaceutical Company (Michigan). He has published approximately 40 articles in scientific journals.

Ken Cumming, Ph.D. Biology (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Biology/Chemistry with honors from Tufts University, a Masters in Biology from Harvard, and the Ph.D. in Biology with a major in Ecology and a minor in Biochemistry from Harvard University. He has been on the faculties at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech), the University of Wisconsin at La Crosse, and Western Wisconsin Technological Institute at La Crosse. Dr. Cumming is presently preparing a video which he made on a recent visit to the Galapagos Islands which discusses the diversity of species in relation to the traditional interpretation of speciation.

David Dewitt, Ph.D. Neuroscience (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Biochemistry from Michigan State University and a Ph.D. in Neuroscience from Case Western Reserve University, School of Medicine. His professional memberships include the Society for Neuroscience and the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine.

Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology (Parasitology) (ICR)
He has a B.A. in Biology from Western State College in Colorado and an M.A. in Zoology from the University of Northern Colorado. Frank's specialty is parasitology. He discovered a new species of parasite, a nematode of the family Acuariidae. He published his research in the peer-reviewed Journal of Parasitology with the late Dr. G.D. Schmidt. Before coming to work for ICR, Frank taught Human Physiology & Anatomy, Medical Microbiology, Parasitology, General Biology I & II and Cell Biology for 9 years at Pensecola Christian College. He is a member of the American Society of Parasitologists and the Helminthological Society of Washington.

Todd C. Wood, Ph.D. Biochemistry/Genomics
He has a B.S. in Biology (highest honors) from Liberty University, a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Virginia, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Genomics from Clemson University. He served as Research Assistant Professor and Director of Bioinformatics from the year 1999 to 2000 and Adjunct Professor, Departments of Crop & Soil Sciences and Genetics from the year 2000 to 2001 at the Clemson University Genomics Institute. Dr. Wood is currently Adjunct Professor of Natural Sciences at Bryan College, Tennessee. He has published articles in secular journals like The American Journal of Human Genetics, Science, and Genome Research on biochemistry and genomics.

Robert Franks, M.D. (Adjunct Faculty/Board Member)
He has a B.A. in Zoology (Magna Cum Laude) from San Diego State University, and a M.D. from UCLA. Dr. Franks has practiced medicine (general practice) for over forty years in San Diego. He currently teaches Introduction to Clinical Medicine at UCSD. He teaches Human Anatomy and Pathology here at the ICR graduate school. Dr. Franks has published research on Scalene Node Biopsy and Pulmonary Embolism.

Robert H. Eckel, M.D. (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Bacteriology from the University of Cincinnati and a M.D. from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Dr. Eckel has authored over 80 papers and over 17 book chapters. He has received over 20 research awards and has been a reviewer for fifty journals including the American Journal of Medicine. Dr. Eckel is also chairman of the nutritional committee of the American Heart Association.

Gary Parker, Ed.D. Biology (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry(high honors) from Wabash College, Crawfordville, IN, a M.S. in Biology/Physiology, and an Ed.D. in Biology with a cognate in Paleontology from Ball State University. Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation. He also wrote five secular books including: The Structure and Function of the Cell, DNA: The Key to Life, Mitosis and Meiosis, Heredity, and Life's Basis: Biomolecules. Dr. Parker's masters thesis concerning amphibian endocrinology was published in Copeia and a summary of his doctoral dissertation on programmed instruction was published in the Journal of College Science Teaching. He has taught biology at Eastern Baptist College, Dordt College, Clearwater Christian College, Christian Heritage College, and ICR's Graduate School.

Bert Thompson, Ph.D. Microbiology
He has a B.S. in Biology from Abilene Christian University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Microbiology from Texas A&M. Dr. Thompson is a former professor in the College of Veterinary Medicine at Texas A&M, where he also served as Coordinator of the Cooperative Education Program in Biomedical Science. He is also a member of the American Society of Microbiology.

David Menton, Ph.D. Cell Biology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Biology from Mankato State University and a Ph.D. in Cell Biology from Brown University. Dr. Menton is Professor Emeritus of Anatomy at Washington U. School of Medicine. He was Associate Professor of Anatomy for over 30 years. He received the "Distinguished Service Teaching Award" in 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 1997, named "Teacher of the Year" 1979 and was elected "Professor of the Year" in 1998 by the Class of 2000. He has also been Profiled in 'American Men and Women of Science - A Biographical Directory of Today's Leaders in Physical, Biological and Related Sciences' for almost two decades.

Raymond V. Damadian, M.D. (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Mathematics from the University of Wisconsin (entered as 16 yr old freshman) and a M.D. from the Albert Einstein College of Medicine in New York. He served as a Fellow in Nephrology at Washington University School of Medicine and as a Fellow in Biophysics at Harvard University. He studied Physiological Chemistry at the School of Aerospace Medicine in San Antonio, Texas. Dr. Damadian later joined the faculty of the State University of New York Downstate Medical Center. His training in medicine and physics led him to develop a new theory of the living cell, his Ion Exchanger Resin Theory. He later invented the MRI (Magnetic Resonance Imaging). He published his findings in the Journal of Science. He has been granted over 40 patents and has published over fifty papers. Dr. Damadian received the United States' National Medal of Technology, the Lemelson-MIT Lifetime Achievement Award for invention and innovation, and was elected to the National Inventors Hall of Fame. Dr. Damadian has been president of the FONAR corporation since 1978. Links of Interest include: Scientific American Profile, Inventor of the Week, and the Lifetime Achievement Award.

Joseph A. Mastropaolo, Ph.D. Kinesiology/Physiology (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Kinesiology from Brooklyn College, a M.S. in Kinesiology from the University of Illinois, a Ph.D. in Kinesiology from the University of Iowa, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Human Physiology from the National Institutes of Health. He also studied Electrocardiography and Biophysics of the Circulation at the University of Chicago, Medical School. Dr. Mastropaolo is a Fellow of the American Heart Association, the Council on Epidemiology and Prevention, the American College of Sports Medicine, and holds a patent in crew conditioning for extended manned space missions. His research interest has been physiology and kinesiology theory for terrestrial, sea, air and space environments. He has been published in the Journal of Applied Physiology, European Journal of Applied Physiology, and Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise among others.

Carl B. Fliermans, Ph.D. Microbiology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Biology from Asbury College, a M.S. in Soil Microbiology from the University of Kentucky, a Ph.D. in Microbiology (Microbiology, Limnology, Ecology) from Indiana University, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship at the National Institutes of Health, University of Minnesota. Dr. Fliermans is a microbial ecologist with the Westinghouse Savannah River Company, E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co. in South Carolina. He has published over sixty publications including papers in Protozoology and the International Journal of Systematic and Evolutionary Microbiology. Dr. Fliermans is a Legionella bacterium (Legionnaires Disease) expert and has served as an expert witness in many litigations. His lab was the first to isolate the bacterium in the natural environment, and he has twenty publications on Legionella as well. He has been part of grants and contracts totaling over twenty-two million dollars. Some of this work has included using microbes to detect land mines for the U.S. Department of Defense and being program technical director of the U.S. Department of Energy's "Microbiology of the Deep Subsurface" program. Dr. Fliermans has also served as a consultant to over ninety universities, companies, and organizations including Harvard Medical School, EPA, U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. Army, Air Force, Navy, National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation.

Ian G. Macreadie, Ph.D. Molecular Biology
He received a B.Sc.(Hons.) and a Ph.D. from Monash University in Australia. His fields were genetics, biochemistry and molecular biology. He completed his Post Doc training at Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas. Dr. Macreadie is a Principal Research Scientist of CSIRO Health Sciences and Nutrition and an Adjunct Professor of RMIT University. He has played key roles in identifying the structure and function of several mitochondrial genes. After joining Bimolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization (CSIRO), he developed a novel yeast expression system that led to the production of an IBDV vaccine. He used yeast systems to produce biologically relevant proteins of human AIDS and major infectious cellular pathogens such as malaria and P. carini. These systems are being used to rapidly screen for new classes of drugs. Major links have been established with key international groups with similar objectives. He is author of over 70 research publications and five patents. His awards include a 1990 Fulbright Senior Scholar Award, 1996 Frank Fenner Research Award. Dr. Macreadie was also a co-recipient of the 1997 CSIRO Chairman's Medal for their outstanding contributions to our knowledge of the structure and biology of the Birnaviridae family of double-stranded RNA viruses, leading to the development of a prototype recombinant vaccine against infectious bursal disease of poultry. He was also Honorary Secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology from 1997-2000.

Andre Eggen, Ph.D. Animal/Molecular Genetics
Dr. Eggen received a B.Sc. in Agronomy and Animal Production and a Ph.D. in Animal and Molecular Genetics from the Federal Institute of Technology in Zurich, Switzerland. Since 1992, he has been working for the INRA (Institute Nationale de la Agrinominque of France). From July 1995 to July 1997, he worked at ABS Global, an artificial insemination company in DeForest, WI, in their DNA Research Lab. Dr. Eggen has published over 60 papers in journals including Genetics Selection Evolution and continues to work with the INRA in bovine genomics.

Lyubka P. Tantcheva, Ph.D. Biochemical Toxicology
Dr. Tantcheva received a M.Sc. in Pharmacy and a Ph.D. in Biochemical Toxicology from the Medical Academy, Sofia. Dr. Tantcheva is a research fellow in the Institute of Physiology at the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences in the field of experimental drug toxicology and pharmacology, and is a member of the Bulgarian Society of Pharmacology, Section of Toxicology and Union of Bulgarian Scientists, Section of Chemistry and Pharmacy.

Walter J. Veith, Ph.D. Zoology
He has a B.Sc. from the University of Stellenbosch with major subjects Zoology and Chemistry, a B.Sc.and M.Sc. in Zoology from the University of Stellenbosch and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Cape Town. Dr. Veith is currently professor and chair of the Zoology Department, University of the Western Cape. He has been teaching at the under and post-graduate level for over 28 years.

John K.G. Kramer, Ph.D. Biochemistry
He has a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Biochemistry from the University of Manatoba and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry with a minor in Organic Chemistry from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Kramer was a Hormel Fellow at the Hormel Institute, Austin, MN (1968-70) and an NRC Fellow (1970-71) at the University of Ottawa, before joining Agriculture Canada in Ottawa as a Research Scientist (1970-present). He was on sabbatical for over a year at the US Food and Drug Administration in Washington, DC and the USDA in Wyndmoor, PA. He received the Government of Canada Merit Award (1983), the CSP Canola Research Award (1984), and the Dutton Research Award (1999). He is and has served as Associate Editor of the journal LIPIDS since 1988. From 1979-85 he was a core member of Agriculture Canada's group to successfully obtain GRAS status for canola oil. Dr. Kramer has published over 147 refereed papers, 40 miscellaneous papers, 55 abstracts, 2 books and 11 chapters.

Benjamin L. Aaron, M.D. (Board Member)
He did his Pre-Med at the University of Missouri and received his M.D. from the University of Texas. Dr. Aaron did his internship and residency at the Naval Hospital, Oakland, CA in Rotating/General Surgery and at the Naval Hospital, New York in Thoracic Surgery. Dr. Aaron was Chief of Surgery, Naval Hospital, Guam, M.I., Chief of Thoracic & Vascular Surgery, Naval Hospital, Portsmouth, VA., Chairman, Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Naval Regional Medical Center, San Diego, CA, and former Director, Cardiothoracic Surgery, George Washington University Medical Center, Washington D.C. He also had the privilege of being head of the surgical team who operated on former President Ronald Reagan when he was shot. You can read a little about this here. Dr. Aaron also performed current Vice President Dick Cheney's bypass operation in 1988.

Sharon K. Bullock, Ph.D. Pathology and Laboratory Medicine
She has a B.S. in Zoology (summa cum laude) from North Carolina State University and a Ph.D. in Pathology and Laboratory Medicine from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Bullock presented research at the 85th, 89th, and 92nd annual American Association for Cancer Research meetings. She is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Association for Cancer Research, and Women in Cancer Research. Dr. Bullock is a member of the biology faculty of Virginia Commonwealth University.

John R. Meyer, Ph.D. Zoology (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Biology/Chemistry from Kearney State College and a Ph.D. in Zoology from the University of Iowa, and a Post-Doctoral Fellowship from the University of Colorado. Dr. Meyer previously taught physiology and biophysics at Louisville University. He is current director of the CRS Van Andel Creation Research Center.

Lane P. Lester, Ph.D. Genetics (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S.E. in Biology from the University of Florida, a M.S. in Ecology and a Ph.D. in Genetics from Purdue University. Dr. Lester has spent over 30 years teaching in the biological sciences including the University of Tennessee. He is a member of the National Association of Biology Teachers and has written materials published by the Biological Sciences Curriculum Study Center at the University of Colorado.

Alan Gillen, Ed.D. Science Education
He has a B.A. in Biology from Washington & Jefferson College in Washington, PA, a M.S. in Zoology from Ohio State University, a certification in Allied Health Sciences from the Baylor College of Medicine and an Ed.D. in Science Education from the University of Houston. Dr. Gillen teaches Anatomy & Physiology, General Biology, Microbiology, Parasitology, and Survey of Biology at Pensecola Christian College in Florida. He is a member of the National Association of Biology Teachers (NABT), the Human Anatomy & Physiology Society (HAPS) and the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA).

Gregory J. Brewer, Ph.D. Biology
He has a B.S. in Biology from the California Institute of Technology, Pasadena, CA. and a Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California San Diego (UCSD). He did postdoctoral work at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology on membrane-mediated macro-regulatory effects of colicin K on E. coli under nobel laureate, Professor Salvador E. Luria. Dr. Brewer is current Professor of Neurology and Medical Microbiology at Southern Illinois University. He has published over 60 papers in refereed journals, over 70 presentations and abstracts at professional meetings, and is currently an ad hoc reviewer for the National Science Foundation.

Arthur J. Jones, Ph.D. Biology
He has a B.Sc.(Hons) in Biology from the University of Birmingham, a M.Ed. in Education from Bristol University, and a Ph.D. in Biology(Developmental Biology, Fish Systematics, History and Philosophy of Biology) from the University of Birmingham, UK. His thesis was Developmental Studies and Speciation in Cichlid Fish, Department of Zoology and Comparative Physiology. Part of Dr. Jones' thesis research was published in the Journal of Morphology. His teaching career has spanned almost thirty years. His science and religion courses have won two Templeton Foundation awards. Dr. Jones is a Chartered Biologist and has been a member of the Institute of Biology, London, since 1976.

Kelly Hollowell, J.D., Ph.D. Mollecular and Cellular Pharmacology
She has a B.S. in Biology and Math from New College of Florida and a Ph.D. in Molecular and Cellular Pharmacology from the University of Miami. Not only is Dr. Hollowell a highly-qualified scientist, but she is also an attorney. Dr. Hollowell has worked as a Research Assistant, Assistant Director of Technical Analysis, Forensic Toxicologist and Science Consultant for different laboratories and companies. Her expertise is in DNA technology and cloning, and she has been published in the Journal of Neurobiology.

Donna O'Daniel, M.A. Biological Sciences
She has a B.A. in Education from Faith Baptist Bible College and a M.A. in Biological Sciences with a minor in Botany from the University of Texas at Austin. She has been a Wildlife Biologist for over thirteen years now. Field research for her M.A. degree was done in Corcovado National Park, Osa Peninsula, Costa Rica (avian seed dispersal in two species of Calathea). She is currently Wildlife Biologist for the Johnston Atoll National Wildlife Refuge, southwest of Hawaii, and her specialty is seabirds. She has conducted the only breeding biology study of the little known Bulwer's Petrel in the Pacific (1992 and 1993). Her work as a biologist has taken her to many remote places, including the Falkland Islands, Aleutian Islands, Midway Atoll, Laysan Island and French Frigate Shoals (Northwest Hawaiian Islands), the Northern Marianas, and Madagascar, and has included work on passerines, raptors, seabirds, shorebirds, and sea turtles. She has also received six awards from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Glen W. Wolfrom, Ph.D. Animal Husbandry
He has a B.S. in Animal Science with a Zoology minor from Western Illinois University, a M.S. in Animal Industries from Southern Illinois University, and a Ph.D. in Animal Husbandry/Ruminant Nutrition with a Statistics minor from the University of Missouri. Dr. Wolfrom is currently Senior Clinical Research Scientist and Project Manager for Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, Inc. where he has worked since 1995. He is a member of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), the American Society of Animal Science (ASAS), and the Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (CAST).

Mark H. Armitage, M.S. Biology
He completed 164 undergraduate hours in Biology from the University of Florida, received a B.S. in Education from Liberty University, and a M.S. in Biology with an emphasis in electron microscopy, parasitology and microtechnique from the Institute of Creation Research Graduate School. His advisor was the late, Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology. Their research led to the discovery of a new parasite species and a new parasite host. Mr. Armitage is currently enrolled in Liberty University's distance program for a Doctoral Program in Science Educational Leadership. He was formerly Adjunct Professor of Biology and EM Laboratory Manager for Azusa Pacific University in their Departments of Biology and Physical Therapy.

In Memory of Richard D. Lumsden, Ph.D. Biology (Former Chair of ICR's Grad School Biology Dept. 1990-1996 - Went Home to be with the Lord 1997)
He had a B.S. and M.S. in Zoology from Tulane University, a traineeship in Cell Biology at Harvard (non-degree), a Ph.D. in Biology from Rice University, and a Post-Doctoral Research Fellowship in Medical Pathology from the Tulane University School of Medicine. Dr. Lumsden was former Professor of Parasitology and Cell Biology and Dean of the Tulane University Graduate School. He received over 21 Research Grants and Contracts from such organizations at the National Institutes of Health, The National Science Foundation, and the FDA. He published some 90 peer-reviewed papers, mostly in parasitological journals often describing new species, and presented over 100 program abstracts. An issue of the Journal of Parasitology [87(3), June 2001], featured a study by a group of workers at UCLA on human brain tapeworm parasites (pages 510-521), and it references work by Dr. Lumsden done over 21 years ago on electron microscopy of the tapeworm. He won the Henry Baldwin Ward medal, the highest award in parasitology. Dr. Lumsden was a member of the American Society of Parasitologists, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society of Zoologists, the Society for Cell Biology, the Helminthological Society of Washington, and the New York Academy of Sciences.

David A. Demick, M.D.
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Huntington College, Huntington, IN and his M.D. from University of Illinois College of Medicine at Urbana-Champaign and at Peoria. He completed his residency in Pathology at the Michael Reese Medical Center, Chicago, IL and at Methodist Medical Center, Peoria, IL. Dr. Demick has been a practicing pathologist for over seventeen years, and he is a member of the American Society of Clinical Pathologists. He is also published in the American Journal of Forensic Medicine and Pathology.

Randy Guliuzza, M.D.
He has a B.S. in Engineering from the South Dakota School of Mines and Technology and an M.D. from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Guliuzza served nine years in the Navy Civil Engineer Corps and is a registerd professional engineer. He is presently a flight surgeon at Brooks Air Force Base in San Antonio, Texas.

Keith Swenson, M.D.
He has a B.S. in Zoology and Pre-medical Studies from the University of Idaho and an M.D. from Washington University School of Medicine (St. Louis, MO). He completed residency training at Michael Reese Hospital (Chicago, IL), Oregon Health Sciences University, and Providence Medical Center (both in Portland, OR). He is a diplomate of the American Board of Internal Medicine and the American Board of Dermatology. Dr. Swenson has served as a Clinical Assistant Professor of Dermatology (University of Illinois) and has practiced clinical medicine for over twenty years.

George F. Howe, Ph.D. Botany
He has a B.S. in Botany from Wheaton College, and the M.Sc., and Ph.D. in Botany from Ohio State University. His thesis research covered several facets of photosynthesis. He completed Post-Doctoral studies in Radiation Biology at Cornell University. He completed Post-Doctoral studies in Botany at Washington State University which was sponsored by the Botanical Society of America and the National Science Foundation. He also completed Post-Doctoral studies in Desert Biology at Arizona State University which was sponsored by the National Science Foundation. Dr. Howe was an instructor of Botany and a Charles F. Keterring Fellow at Ohio State University. He has had papers published in the Bulletin of the Southern California Academy of Sciences and the Ohio Journal of Science among others covering topics like photosynthesis, chaparral regrowth after fire, pollination of the camphor weed, ring muhley grass, and lichens. Dr. Howe was previously a member of the Society of the Sigma Xi, the Southern California Academy of Sciences, and the Southern California Botanists. He was also listed in American Men and Women of Science.

David A. Kaufmann, Ph.D. Anatomy
He has a B.S. in Mathematics/Physical Education from Slippery Rock University, a M.A. in Physical Education, and a Ph.D. in Anatomy from the University of Iowa. He completed Post-Doctoral research in Biomechanics of Sports Skills at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology, Zurich and Exercise Physiology at Wingate Institute, Netanya, Israel. He is retired Professor of Exercise Science at the University of Florida where he taught for 27 years.

Jonathan B. Scripture, Ph.D. Biochemistry
He has a B.A. in Zoology from the University of California, Berkley and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry from the University of Notre Dame. Dr. Scripture's research at Notre Dame included structure/function studies on ribosomal RNA using chemical and mutational analyses. He spent five years at Case Western Reserve Medical School where he did comparative protein and DNA analysis of carbohyrdrate binding proteins in bacteria. His research has been published in the Journal of Biological Chemistry and the Journal of Molecular Biology.

Richard Oliver , Ph.D. Biology
He has a B.S. in Biology from the University of California, Fullerton and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Biology from the University of California, Irvine. He is a member of the American Federation of Herpetoculturalists, the California Science Teachers Association, and the New York Academy of Science.

Inis J. Bardella, M.D.
She has a B.S. in Biology(high honors) from Washington and Jefferson College and M.D. from the Temple University School of Medicine. Dr. Bardella did her residency in Family Practice at Washington Hospital in in Washington, PA. She is currently Assistant Professor of Family Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology and Director of Community Faculty for the Department of Family Medicine, University of Pittsburgh. Dr. Bardella is also a physician for the East Liberty Family Health Care Center, Lincoln Lemington Office.

Gary A. Eckhoff, D.V.M.
He has a M.S. in Pharmacology with a Minor in Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine and a D.V.M from the Iowa State University, College of Veterinary Medicine. He was involved in university teaching and research for 16 years as well as four years of private practice. He has worked in the industrial field for the last twelve years for companies like Solvay Animal Health, Hazelton, Inc., and Geneva Laboratories, Inc. His current position is Director of Laboratory Animal Science and Animal Toxicology for Geneva Laboratories, Inc. Dr. Eckhoff is a member of the American College of Laboratory Animal Disease, American Veterinary Medical Association, Association of Primate Veterinarians, and the American Association for Laboratory Animal Science.





Physical Scientists Who Are Creationists (small list)
Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. Hydraulic Engineering (Founder and President Emeritus of ICR)
He has a B.S. from Rice University with honors in Civil Engineering and M.S. and Ph.D. degrees from the University of Minnesota. Dr. Morris majored in engineering hydraulics/hydrology while minoring in Geology and Mathematics. He has served on the faculties of Rice University, the University of Minnesota, the University of Southwestern Louisiana, and Southern Illinois University. From 1957 to 1970 he was Head of the Department of Civil Engineering at the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (Virginia Tech). While at Virginia Tech, Dr. Morris was able to get approval for Ph.D. programs in Civil Engineering and Hydraulics. Dr. Morris authored Applied Hydraulics in Engineering, which has been used by over 100 colleges and universities at one time or another. It is still used today as a reference and even the main text in some university classes. As of 1993 and 30 years after the first edition was printed, there was no comparable textbook available.

John Morris, Ph.D. Geological Engineering (President of ICR)
He has the B.S. in Civil Engineering from Virginia Polytechnic Institute and the M.S. and Ph.D. in Geological Engineering from the University of Oklahoma. He was a research assistant from 1978-1980 and assistant professor of Geological Engineering from 1980-1984 at Oklahoma University as well.

Steven Austin, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)
He has the B.S. from the University of Washington, M.S. from San Jose State University and Ph.D. from the Pennsylvania State University, all in geology. His professional memberships include the Geological Society of America, the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, the Society for Sedimentary Geology, the International Association of Sedimentologists. He has had professional, peer-reviewed projects at Mt. St. Helens and within the Grand Canyon. Current research is being conducted on mass kill of nautiloids within the Redwall limestone of the Grand Canyon, radioisotopes of Grand Canyon rocks, and earthquake destruction of archaeological sites in the Kingdom of Jordan. In 1999, Dr. Austin published research in the prestigious, peer-reviewed journal International Geology Review.

Larry Vardiman, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Physics from the U. of Missouri at Rolla, a B.S. in Meteorology from St. Louis University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University. Dr. Vardiman is a member of the American Meteorological Society.

John R. Baumgardner, Ph.D. Geophysics and Space Physics
(Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Electrical Engineering from Texas Tech University, a M.S. in Electrical Engineering from Princeton University and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Geophysics and Space Physics from UCLA. Dr. Baumgardner has served as staff scientist in the Fluid Dynamics Group of the Theoretical Division at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico since 1984. He is famous for his development of the TERRA program, a 3-D spherical finite element model for the earth's mantle. Beginning in 1995 Dr. Baumgardner assisted the German Weather Service in adapting methods from the TERRA code as the basis for a new operational global weather forecast model known as GME that is now used in Germany and ten other countries.

Russell Humphreys, Ph.D. Physics (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Physics from Duke University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Louisiana State University. Dr. Humphreys then worked six years for the High Voltage Laboratory of General Electric. While there, he received a US patent and one of Industrial Research Magazine's IR-100 awards. He has worked for Sandia National Laboratories since 1979 in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed power research, theoretical atomic and nuclear physics, and the Particle Beam Fusion Project. He was co-inventor of special laser-triggered "Rimfire" high-voltage switches. Dr. Humphreys has received another US patent and two awards from Sandia, including an Award for excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. Geology (ICR)
He has a B.Sc. with first class honours in Applied Geology from the University of New South Wales in Sydney, Australia and a Ph.D. in Geology from the University of Sydney. He worked for a number of years in the mining industry in locations throughout Australia undertaking mineral exploration surveys and field research. He has also been a consultant research geologist for more than a decade to the Australian Nuclear Science and Technology Organization and the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission for internationally-funded research on the geology and geochemistry of uranium ore deposits as analogues of nuclear waste disposal sites. His primary research interests include radioisotopic methods for the dating of rocks, formation of igneous and metamorphic rocks, and ore deposits.

Bill Hoesch, M.S. Geology (ICR)
He has a B.S. in Biology from the University of Colorado and a M.S. in Geology from the ICR Graduate School. For 7 years Bill was employed in petroleum exploration, including jobs as borehole logging engineer in Wyoming with Dresser-Atlas, wellsite geologist in Kenya, Congo and Angola with Cities Service International, and graduate research for Aminoil International (Houston) which led to a 279-page in-house publication on the petroleum potential of Kalimantan, Indonesia. While earning a Masters of Science degree in geology from the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School, Bill also worked for C.H. Wood & Associates evaluating damage in the aftermath of the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake in the San Francisco Bay area. This was followed by a one-year teaching position at Jianghan Petroleum Institute in the People's Republic of China, where he taught university students in English, Geology and petroleum exploration. Bill then returned to the U.S. where he took a position as Public Information Officer at ICR, and then Research Geologist, where he currently assists in mineral isolation of RATE project rocks, and field work in parts of Arizona, Nevada and Utah on a stratigraphic study of a nautiloid mass-kill deposit.

David Phillips, M.A. Paleoanthropology
He has a B.A. in Physical Anthropology with minors in Biology and Geology from the California State University of Northridge (CSUN) and a M.A. in Paleoanthropology with highest honors from CSUN as well. Professor Phillipps is pursuing his Ph.D. in Paleontology. He is professor of physical sciences at the Masters College and works at the Paleontology lab for the La Brea Tar Pits.

Danny Faulkner, Ph.D. Astronomy (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. in Math from Bob Jones University, an M.S. in Physics from Clemson University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in Astronomy from Indiana University. Dr. Faulkner has been Professor of Astronomy and Physics at the University of South Carolina, Lancaster since 1986. His research interests include stellar astronomy, especially binary stars. He has been published in the Astrophysical Journal, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and the Information Bulletin on Variable Stars.

Don DeYoung, Ph.D. Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics from Michigan Technological University and a Ph.D. in Physics from Iowa State University. Dr. DeYoung has published several articles in the areas of solid-state physics and nuclear science in The Journal of Chemistry and Physics of Solids, The Journal of Chemical Physics and several science teaching publications, Science Teacher and Crucible. He is a member of the American Physical Society, the Indiana Academy of Science, and the Association of Physics Teachers. Dr. DeYoung teaches Physics at Grace College in Indiana.

Eugene Chaffin, Ph.D. Theoretical Nuclear Physics (Adjunct Faculty for ICR)
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Physics and a Ph.D. in Theoretical Nuclear Physics from Oklahoma State University. Dr. Chaffin did post-doctoral studies at the Institute for Applied Nuclear Physics in Karlsruhe, Germany. This involved two years of research on the theory of nuclear fission. Dr. Chaffin taught Physics for four years at the Naval Nuclear Power School. He was responsible for training Naval personnel for duty operating and maintaining nuclear reactors on board U.S. Navy submarines and surface ships. (More to come...)

John W. Oller, Jr., Ph.D. General Linguistics (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.A. in Spanish and French with a minor in Education from Fresno State University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in General Linguistics from the University of Rochester, New York. Dr. Oller's dissertation was on The Coding of Information in Natural Languages: A Psycholinguistic Theory. An elected member of the New York Academy of Sciences, Dr. Oller is an experimentalist and measurement specialist in language, literacy, communication, and intelligence. He has authored or co-authored thirteen professional books and more than two hundred professional articles. In 1984, he won the Modern Language Association Mildenberger Medal, an international prize for the best book on foreign language teaching. Dr. Oller is currently a Professor of Communicative Disorders, Head of the Department of Communicative Disorders and Director of the Doris B. Hawthorne Center for Special Education and Communicative Disorders at the University of Louisiana.

Jay L. Wile, Ph.D. Nuclear Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry and a Ph.D. in Nuclear Chemistry from the University of Rochester in New York. He was granted three research grants which were given in-part by the National Science Foundation. Dr. Wile was given the Westinghouse Science Talent Search Certificate of Honor for Science Service. He has memberships with the American Chemical Society, the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Andrew C. McIntosh, Ph.D. Combustion Theory
He has a D.Sc. in Applied Mathematics from the University of Wales with first class honours, a Ph.D. in the Theory of Combustion from the Cranefield Institute of Technology and a DSc in Mathematics from the University of Wales. Dr. McIntosh is a Reader (second-highest teaching/research rank in U.K. university hierarchy) in Combustion Theory at Leeds University, U.K. He has contributed chapters to 10 textbooks dealing with combustion theory and published over 80 research papers.

Alexander V. Lalomov, Ph.D. Geology
He has a M.S. in Geochemistry Leningrad State University and a Ph.D. in Submarine Geology from the USSR National Research Institute of Ocean Geology. Dr. Lalomov is a member of the Society of the Geological Society of USSR (Russia since 1992), the Geographical Society of Russia, and the Ecology Union of Russia.

Tom McMullen, Ph.D. History and Philosophy of Science
He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Washington State University, a M.S. in Engineering Administration from Southern Methodist University and a M.A. and Ph.D. in the History and Philosophy of Science from Indiana University. Dr. McMullen is a member of the History of Science Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

Kurt P. Wise, Ph.D. Geology (Paleontology)
He has a B.A. in Geophysical Sciences (majored in Geology while close to a second major in Biology) from the University of Chicago, and a M.A. and Ph.D. in Geology (Paleontology) from Harvard University where Stephen J. Gould was his principal advisor. Dr. Wise has published in the Journal of Paleobiology, received the Certificate of Distinction in Teaching two years in a row from the Harvard-Danforth Center for Teaching and Learning, Harvard University, and is a member of the National Center for Science Education and the Paleontological Society. He also taught Paleontology and Biosystematics at the Institute for Creation Research Graduate School and has assisted ICR in previous tours to Mt. St. Helens, the Grand Canyon, and Yellowstone. Dr. Wise is currently Director of Origins Research and Associate Professor of Science, Division of Mathematics and Natural Science, Bryan College, Dayton, TN.

David P. Livingston, Jr., Ph.D. Archaeology and Ancient History
He has a B.A. in General Science from Wheaton College, a M.A. with honors in Old Testament Studies from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School and a Ph.D. in Archaeology and Ancient History from Andrews University. He also studied Archaeology and Hebrew for one year at the Institute for Holy Land Studies in Jerusalem and two years of graduate studies in Ancient History at Dropsie University in Philadelphia. Dr. Livingston has directed fifteen seasons of excavations in Khirbet Nisya, which is 11 miles north of Jerusalem. He has also participated in excavations in Jerusalem, Jericho, Jezreel, Bourgata and Gezer.

Paul Ackerman, Ph.D. Psychology
He has a B.S., M.S. and Ph.D. in Psychology from the University of Kansas. Dr. Ackerman is currently an assistant professor of Psychology and the Assistant Chairperson of the Psychology Department at Wichita State University.

Keith H. Wanser, Ph.D. Condensed Matter Physics
He has a B.A. in Physics from California State University, Fullerton, a M.A. in Physics, and a Ph.D. in Condensed Matter Physics both from the University of California, Irvine. Dr. Wanser is currently professor of Physics at California State University, Fullerton. He has received seven patents and over 1 million dollars in grant and contract awards. Before beginning his teaching career, Dr. Wanser worked for McDonnell Douglas Astronautics as a senior scientist and the Optical Sciences Division, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, DC. He received the School of NSM 1996 oustanding research award.

Edmond W. Holroyd, III Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. in Astrophysics with a minor in Physics from the University of Rochester and a Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from the University of New York at Albany. Dr. Holroyd has been a meteorologist and research physical scientist since 1974 for the Bureau of Reclamation, Denver Office, Colorado, and field offices. He has also been Adjunct Professor since 1999 at the University College, University of Denver, GIS department. He is a member of the American Meteorological Society and the Weather Modification Association.

Donald E. Chittick, Ph.D. Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from Willamette University and a Ph.D. in Chemistry from Oregon State University. His research interests include programmed instruction for which he was granted a U.S. patent and also alternate fuels in which he holds both U.S. and foreign patents. He was awarded recognition in Outstanding Educators in America, is listed in Who's Who in the West and in American Men and Women of Science. He is a member of the American Chemical Society. Dr. and Mrs. Chittick received the Bent Twig Award in 1986 from Citizens for Public Education.

Raul E. Lopez, Ph.D. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. in Physics and Math from the University of Puerto Rico and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Atmospheric Science from Colorado State University. His areas of experience are in Meteorology, Lightning, Convective Cloud Systems and much more. Dr. Lopez has published over forty-five papers in scientific and professional journals. He has also published over ninety conference papers and technical reports.

Arlo Moehlenpah, D.Sc. Chemical Engineering
He has a B.S. in Chemical Engineering from Washington University, a M.S. in Chemical Engineering from the University of Minnesota, and a D.Sc. in Chemical Engineering from Washington University. He has served on the faculties of Macalester College, Wisconsin State University, and San Joaquin Delta College and has industrial experience with Shell Oil, Rohm & Haas, Monsanto and Hydro-Air Engineering. Dr. Moehlenpah has been a registered professional engineer since 1972.

Robert Hermann, Ph.D. Mathematics
He has a B.A.(with honors) in Mathematics with a minor in Physics from John Hopkins University, a M.A. and a Ph.D. in Mathematics from American University. He is current professor of Mathematics at the U.S. Naval Academy and has taught Mathematics for almost 40 years now. Dr. Hermann has published 62 articles in 28 different refereed journals from 13 countries and has written 5 books. He has presented 31 papers at meetings of scholarly societies and published 45 abstracts. He has presented over 2,000 scientific disclosures. His efforts have been directed towards popularizing nonstandard analysis.

Otto E. Berg, B.A. Physics/Chemistry
He has a B.A. in Physics and Chemistry from Concordia College, Moorhead, Minnesota. He was on the research staff and also a consultant for three years to the NASA Goddard Space Center at the University of Maryland. He has also been a consultant since 1991 to the NASA Goddard Space Center at the Calvert Institute, Maryland for nucleation and growth processes related to the formation of presolar grains and planets. Mr. Berg is also a retired member for the NASA Meteoroid Environment Panel and the International Committee on Space Research, Meteoroid Panel. He received an Honorary Doctorate-Honoris Causa in 1994 for major contributions in space research and received the 1977 NASA Exceptional Achievement Medal (only two conferred in 1977).

Malcolm A. Cutchins, Ph.D. Engineering Mechanics (Technical Advisory Board)
He has a B.S. in Civil Engineering (Structures) from Virginia Teach and a M.S. and Ph.D. in Engineering Mechanics from Virginia Tech. Dr. Cutchins is Professor Emeritus of Aerospace Engineering at Auburn University where he taught for over 33 years. He received the Birdsong Merit Teaching Award in 1997, the Outstanding Faculty Award(college-wide), College of Engineering twice in 1967 and 1976, the Outstanding Faculty Award, AE Department in 1981, the Engineer of the Year Award, ASPE in 1985, and the IR-100 Award in 1976. Dr. Cutchins is well-published and has performed research for NSF, the USAF, and NASA.

Patrick Young, Ph.D. Analytical Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemisty from the University of Rio Grande and a Ph.D. in Analytical Chemistry with Minors in Organic and Physical Chemistry from Ohio University. He received the Donald F. Clippinger award for superior research by a graduate student. After graduation he initiated an in-depth research program on the study of lyotropic liquid crystals where he received U. S. patent as co-inventor of a Kevlar® polymer and process modification improving critical properties in high performance composites. Kevlar® is used in space-age applications and bullet-proof vests. Dr. Young has been active in the research and development of Mylar® film products for capacitor and thermal transfer media applications. He has been technical service manager, research group leader, and chemist at Dupont Laboratories since 1984. Dr. Young was voted one of the outstanding young men of America in 1989 and voted one of the outstanding young men of science in 1993.

Ron Samec, Ph.D. Physics
He has a B.A. in Astronomy and a M.A. in Science Education, Physics concentration from the University of South Florida and a Ph.D. in Physics from Clemson University. Dr. Samec has taught physics and astronomy at Butler, Millkan, and Bob Jones Universities. He currently teaches at Bob Jones University. He is a member of the American Physical Society (APS), the American Association of Physics Teachers (AAPT), the American Astronomical Society (AAS), Full Member, the Astronomical Society of the Pacific (ASP), and the International Astronomical Union (IAU) among others. Dr. Samec has published over 100 papers.

Daniel W. Reynolds , Ph.D. Physical Organic Chemistry
He has a B.S. in Chemistry from the University of Texas, San Antonio, a M.A. in Synthetic Organic Chemistry from the University of Texas, Austin, and a Ph.D. in Physical Organic Chemistry from the University of Texas, Austin. He was a postdoctoral fellow at the Southwest Texas State University, San Marcos and published 8 papers. Dr. Reynolds was a developmental scientist for six years. He has been a research investigator for the past six years.

Gary Locklair, Ph.D. Computer Science
He has a B.A. in Chemistry and a B.S. in Computer Science from California State University, Sacramento, a M.S. in Computer Science from the University of Idaho, and a Ph.D. in Computer Science from Nova Southeastern University. He worked for nine years as software programmer and manager, analyst, software engineer, and various other positions for companies like LaserJet and Hewlett-Packard. Dr. Locklair is currently professor and chair of the computer science department at Concordia University, Wisconsin.

Michael Oard, M.S. Atmospheric Science
He has a B.S. and M.S. in Atmospheric Science from the University of Washington. He was a research assistant at the University of Washington for five years. He was a meteorologist with the National Weather Service, Great Falls, Montana for over 27 years and lead forecaster for 20 years. Mr. Oard was published in the Journal of Meteorology among others.

Jerry R. Bergman, Ph.D. Evaluation and Research
He received a B.S. with major areas of study in Education, Psychology, and Biology, a M.Ed. in Psychology and Counseling, and a Ph.D. in Evaluation and Research with a minor in Psychology from Wayne State University, Detroit, Michigan. He also received a M.A. in Social Psychology from Bowling Green State University and a M.S.B.S. in Biomedical Science from the Medical College of Ohio, Toledo. Dr. Bergman has published over 350 papers in secular journals as well as creation science publications.

Emmett L. Williams, Ph.D. Materials Engineering
He received a B.S. and M.S. in Metallurigical Engineering from Virginia Tech and a Ph.D. in Materials Engineering from Clemson University. He has seventeen years of both academic and industrial experience including research on thermodynamics of nitriding reaction in stainless steel, metallurgy and failure analysis of nuclear and air craft structures, surface studies of aircraft alloys, use of scanning electron microscopy, and much more.

Edward A. Boudreaux, Ph.D. Chemistry
He received a B.S. in Chemistry from Loyola University, a M.S. in Chemistry, and a Ph.D. in Chemistry both from Tulane University. Dr. Boudreaux has published 30 papers in peer-reviewed journals, made 18 contributions to chapters in scientific books and review articles, was author and/or co-author of 4 technical books, presented over 54 scientific research presentations at national and international conferences and symposia, and presented over 30 invited scientific lectures at national and international institutions. He is a member or has been a member of Sigma Xi, the Chemical Society of London, International Society of Quantum Biology, Southeastern Theoretical Chemistry Association, Louisiana Academy of Sciences, and the American Chemical Society(Board Member, Louisiana Section). Dr. Boudreaux has spent 29 years in graduate education and research at the University of New Orleans. He is Professor Emeritus of Chemistry.

Jerry M. Simmons, Ph.D. Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education (Science Teaching Emphasis)
He received a B.S. in Chemistry and Technology from the New Mexico Institute of Mining, a M.S. in Teaching and Technology from the New Mexico Institute of Mining, and a Ph.D. in Multicultural Teacher & Childhood Education(Science Teaching Emphasis) from the University of New Mexico. He has been professor at Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute and Wayland Baptist University (Albuquerque), curriculum reviewer for the University of New Mexico, clinical supervisor and instructor, College of Education, University of New Mexico, and instructor, Department of Physics, University of New Mexico. Dr. Simmons received the Science Teacher of the Year Award, Northwest Regional Science and Engineering Fair and was listed in Who's Who Among American Teachers in 1994.

David R. McQueen, M.S. Geology
He received a B.A. in Geology from the University of Tennessee, a M.S. in Geology from the University of Michigan, and an Ed.S. in Curriculum and Instruction(Science Education) and a EPA Graduate Fellow in Toxicology from Northeast Louisiana University. He has 31 years experience as a teacher and scientist, having completed graduate work during this time in three academic areas: geology, science education, and environmental toxicology. The universities he has taught at include George Mason, Virginia State, Easte Tennessee State, and National University. He has been a Regulatory Hydrogeologist with the Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality since 1989. He received a U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Graduate Fellowship in Toxicology from 1991-93, a U.S. Geological Survey "Unit Cash Award" for a mineral resources map, and received a National Science Foundation Graduate Fellowship in Geology from 1975-77.

Les Bruce, Ph.D. Linguistics
He received a B.A. in Biblical Studies from John Brown University, a M.A. in Biblical Education from Columbia Bible College, and a Ph.D. in Linguistics from The Australian National University. He has worked with the Summer Institute of Linguistics since 1968 and is currently associate professor of Linguistics at the Graduate Institute of Applied Linguistics in Dallas, TX.


Fizban

03-29-2005, 12:43 AM

No, by definition, they are not, as soon as you begin dealing with metaphysics, you cease being a scientist.

Intelligent design cannot be tested.

Whether evolution is a theory or not, you admitted yourself that it was a HYPOTHESIS, it can be tested.

But regardless, you have failed to prove that Creationism/ID (if your saying ID in the concept that we were created by a greater being, then yeah, sure, but what created your creator? logically they had to evolve at some point or it's a metaphysical concept and it's moot) is scientific. Neither can be tested, and both deal with METAPHYSICAL CONCEPTS.

Science is the study of NATURUAL PHENOMENA.

As for this thread, I give up, you're obviously too childish to accept that you believe in something that is completely and utterly unscientific. Deal with it. Creationism and Intelligent design belong in church and theology classes, not biology and human evolution classes.


PapaGeorgio

03-29-2005, 12:47 AM

Fiz, show me how evolution can be or has been tested. just one example sparky, thats all I'm asking.

So Fizban just said that this guy I am about to post, is not a scientist (During the comprehensive period of 1981 - 1997 Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world; out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited. The Science Citation Index reports that by December 31, 1999, his research had been cited more than 30,000 times): Biographical Sketch
Henry F. Schaefer III was born in Grand Rapids, Michigan in 1944. He attended public schools in Syracuse (New York), Menlo Park (California), and Grand Rapids (Michigan), graduating from East Grand Rapids High School in 1962. He received his B.S. degree in chemical physics from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1966) and Ph.D. degree in chemical physics from Stanford University (1969). For 18 years (1969-1987) he served as a professor of chemistry at the University of California, Berkeley. During the 1979-1980 academic year he was also Wilfred T. Doherty Professor of Chemistry and inaugural Director of the Institute for Theoretical Chemistry at the University of Texas, Austin. Since 1987 Dr. Schaefer has been Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and Director of the Center for Computational Chemistry at the University of Georgia. His other academic appointments include Professeur d'Echange at the University of Paris (1977), Gastprofessur at the Eidgenossische Technische Hochshule (ETH), Zurich (1994, 1995, 1997, 2000, 2002, 2004), and David P. Craig Visiting Professor at the Australian National University (1999). He is the author of more than 1000 scientific publications, the majority appearing in the Journal of Chemical Physics or the Journal of the American Chemical Society. A total of 300 scientists from 35 countries gathered in Gyeongju, Korea for a six-day conference in February, 2004 with the title ?Theory and Applications of Computational Chemistry: A Celebration of 1000 Papers of Professor Henry F. Schaefer III.?

Critical to Professor Schaefer's scientific success has been a brilliant array of students and coworkers; including 48 undergraduate researchers who have published papers with him, 73 successful Ph.D. students, 41 postdoctoral researchers, and 52 visiting professors who have spent substantial time in the Schaefer group. A number of his students have gone on to positions of distinction in industry (American Cyanamid, AstraZeneca, AT&T, Avaya, Chemical Abstracts, Computational Geosciences, Dow Chemical, Electronic Arts, GAUSSIAN, Goodrich, Henkel, Hughes Aircraft, IBM, Komag, Locus Pharmaceuticals, Mobil Research, Molecular Simulations, Monsanto, OpenEye, OSI Software, Pharmaceutical Research Associates, Proctor & Gamble, Q-CHEM, Reagens Deutschland, Ricoh, Schroedinger, SciCo, and Sugen). Five of his graduated Ph.D.'s have successfully started their own companies. Several have gone on to successful careers in government laboratories, including the Joint Institute for Laboratory Astrophysics (JILA), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, NASA Ames, National Cancer Institute, National Center for Disease Control, National Institutes of Health (Bethesda), Naval Research Laboratory, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Pittsburgh Supercomputing Center, and Sandia National Laboratories. Charles Blahous went directly from his Ph.D. studies with Dr. Schaefer to the position of American Physical Society Congressional Scientist Fellow, and eventually to positions of significant importance in the U.S. political system (chief of staff for Senator Alan Simpson of Wyoming; and currently chief strategist for President George W. Bush's initiative to reform social security).

Many of Dr. Schaefer's students have accepted professorships in universities, including the University of Alabama at Birmingham, University of Arizona, University of California at Merced, City University of New York, Georgia Tech, University of Georgia, University of Giessen (Germany), University of Girona (Spain), University of Grenoble (France), University of Guelph (Ontario), University of Illinois-Chicago, University of Illinois-Urbana, Johns Hopkins University, Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis, University of Kentucky, University of Manchester (England), University of Marburg (Germany), University of Michigan, University of Mississippi, National Tsing Hua University (Taiwan), University of North Dakota, Ohio State University, Osaka University (Japan), University of Paris - Sud (France), Pohang Institute of Science and Technology (Korea), Portland State University, Pennsylvania State University, Rice University, Rikkyo University (Tokyo), Scripps Research Institute, Stanford University, University of Stirling (Scotland), University of Stockholm (Sweden), University of Tasmania (Australia), Technical University of Munich, Texas A&M University, the University of Texas at Arlington, University of Trondheim (Norway), and Virginia Tech. Dr. Schaefer has been invited to present plenary lectures at more than 190 national or international scientific conferences. He has delivered endowed or named lectures or lecture series at more than 35 major universities, including the 1998 Kenneth S. Pitzer Memorial Lecture at Berkeley and the 2001 Israel Pollak Distinguished Lectures at the Technion - Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa. He is the recipient of twelve honorary degrees. He is the Editor-in-Chief of the London-based journal Molecular Physics and President of the World Association of Theoretically Oriented Chemists. His service to the chemical community includes the chairmanship of the American Chemical Society's Subdivision of Theoretical Chemistry (1982) and Division of Physical Chemistry (1992). At the 228th National Meeting of the American Chemical Society (Philadelphia, August, 2004) the Division of Computers in Chemistry and the Division of Physical Chemistry co-sponsored a four-day symposium in honor of Dr. Schaefer.

Professor Schaefer's major awards include the American Chemical Society Award in Pure Chemistry (1979, "for the development of computational quantum chemistry into a reliable quantitative field of chemistry and for prolific exemplary calculations of broad chemical interest"); the American Chemical Society Leo Hendrik Baekeland Award (1983, "for his contributions to computational quantum chemistry and for outstanding applications of this technique to a wide range of chemical problems"); the Schr?ger Medal (1990); the Centenary Medal of the Royal Society of Chemistry (London, 1992, as "the first theoretical chemist successfully to challenge the accepted conclusions of a distinguished experimental group for a polyatomic molecule, namely methylene"); the American Chemical Society Award in Theoretical Chemistry (2003, "for his development of novel and powerful computational methods of electronic structure theory, and their innovative use to solve a host of important chemical problems"). In 2003 he also received the annual American Chemical Society Ira Remsen Award, named after the first chemistry research professor in North America. The Remsen Award citation reads "For work that resulted in more than one hundred distinct, critical theoretical predictions that were subsequently confirmed by experiment and for work that provided a watershed in the field of quantum chemistry, not by reproducing experiment, but using state-of-the-art theory to make new chemical discoveries and, when necessary, to challenge experiment." The Journal of Physical Chemistry published a special issue in honor of Dr. Schaefer on April 15, 2004. He was elected a Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2004. He has been named the recipient of the prestigious Joseph O. Hirschfelder Prize of the University of Wisconsin for the academic year 2005-2006.

During the comprehensive period of 1981 - 1997 Professor Schaefer was the sixth most highly cited chemist in the world; out of a total of 628,000 chemists whose research was cited. The Science Citation Index reports that by December 31, 1999, his research had been cited more than 30,000 times. His research involves the use of state-of-the-art computational hardware and theoretical methods to solve important problems in molecular quantum mechanics.

Professor Schaefer is also well known as a student of the relationship between science and religion. One or more of the lectures in his popular lecture series on this important topic have been presented at most major universities in North America, including Harvard, Stanford, Berkeley, M.I.T., Yale, Princeton, and the Universities of Alberta and Toronto. Dr. Schaefer has also presented these lectures in many universities abroad, including those in Ankara, Bangalore, Beijing, Berlin, Bern, Bratislava, Budapest, Calcutta, Canberra, Cape Town, Chengdu, Christchurch, Cluj-Napoca, Delhi, Durban, Hong Kong, Hyderabad, Istanbul, Kanpur, Kunming, Lausanne, London, Lucknow, Madras, Mumbai (Bombay), Paris, Prague, Sarajevo, Seoul, Shanghai, Singapore, Sofia, Split, St. Petersburg, Sydney, Szeged, Taipei, Tokyo, Urumqi, Zagreb, and Zurich. The lecture "The Big Bang, Stephen Hawking, and God" appears in many locations and in several languages on the worldwide web. This lecture has been one of the most popular articles on the web for the past five years, as discussed in Michael White and John Gribbin's best selling biography of Professor Hawking (pages 314-315 of the 2002 edition). On April 24, 2002 Dr. Schaefer received the first Erick Bogseth Nilson Award, given to an outstanding university professor in North America, by the organization Christian Leadership. A brief spiritual biography (through 1991, written by Dr. David Fisher) of Professor Schaefer may be found on pages 323 - 326 of the book "More Than Conquerors," edited by John Woodbridge (Moody Press, Chicago, 1992). At the University of Georgia Professor Schaefer teaches a popular two credit freshman seminar each year entitled "Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?" Dr. Schaefer's book with the same title had its third printing in March 2004 and reached position #84 the same month on the best-selling list of Amazon.com.


Fizban

03-29-2005, 12:54 AM

*Sigh*

Equipment:

Controlled environment
Creatures
Conflict

Procedure:

1. Create an environment
2. Populate environment with specific creatures
3. Allow for creatures to multiply
4. Introduce conflict, not violently enough to kill but enough to make their lives hard
5. Observe

ID

Equipment:

One nothing
Supernatural Powers
Omnipotence
Omniscience
A linear timeline with a start

Procedure:

1. Create
2. Laugh as your creations try to determine how they were created
3. become senile and allow for your 'alter-ego' to plant sin into the world

There is no way to test Intelligent Design or Creation in natural environment.


PapaGeorgio

03-29-2005, 01:33 AM

Create
2. Laugh as your creations try to determine how they were created
3. Become senile and allow for your 'alter-ego' to plant sin into the worldStraw Man. Why argue against something when you cannot even state that something in its proper context? Don’t get me wrong, I am happy to hear that you and the others here agree with me that almost all of the scientific and university professors and k-12 grade teachers are teaching evolution as fact and therefore wrong. However, even with this admission from you and the others here, show me the money!

Give me one example of evolution being tested. Miller/Urey? Peppered Moths? All you have given me are thought experiments. Thought experiments are not science. The chemical makeup of an item is science. The atomic weight of something else is science. So far you haven’t supported your claims that evolution can be tested. Every test I know of done (say fruit flies, Miller/Urey) shows that evolution is impossible. The DVDs I mentioned to you shows Intelligent Design is testable and provable.

What you have shown is what I have shown, that your position is metaphysical in nature:
“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Kansan State University immunologist, Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature, 410 [6752], 30 September, 1999).

I will illustrate with a mock conversation between a science professor and a student:Professor: “Miracles are impossible Sean, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them .”

Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?”

Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.”

Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?”

Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’”

Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible”

(Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House (2001), pp. 63-64).So an honest “atheist” [philosophical naturalist] would realize that his position is philosophical / presuppositional (presuppose – to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance), and not rationally nor logically defensible. Plato was right, “atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” Another syllogistic example is in order before we go on to deal with agnosticism. The atheist can be shown that his starting point – presupposition – interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation:
Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.

Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,

Conclusion: there is no God.

(Robert A. Morey, [i]The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R (1986), p. 57.)

Ref: My paper on atheism
Do me one huge favor Fizban, take your youthful self down to your local book store and get the Geisler book I just quoted. I think you will enjoy the read.

Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith.


Fizban

03-29-2005, 10:10 PM

Wow, you manage to say nothing except that ID or Creation is Logical (debatable but I'm not giving you the pleasure). I've stated before that no matter how scientifically you approach ID or Creation it is not scientific.

I don't care whether it's logical, SCIENCE DOES NOT DEAL WITH METAPHYSICS, DO YOU LEARN WELDING IN ENGLISH? no. Not only are science and religion different they're two opposites.

I'm not atheist don't claim I am.

A hypothesis is something that CAN BE TESTED currently several tests on evolution are taking place, domestication of wild animals (such as the foxes in russia) is one example. Micro-evolution does not explain it.

There's countless other tests being carried out right now, search the internet, something we both have access to.

Quit papa, you're getting annoying.

You're bringing arguments vaguely related and using it to prove a totally different argument. It doesn't work.


PapaGeorgio

03-29-2005, 11:06 PM

Okay, are you ready to actually read and debate an in-depth article or two?? After you read the following articles you can also respond to my small essay on information as well.

Is Intelligent Design Testable? (long)
http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_isidtestable.htm

FAQ: Does intelligent design make predictions? Is it testable?
http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1156

Is Intelligent Design Testable? A Response to Eugenie Scott
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/dembski/docs/bd-testable.html

DNA/RNA, or Information?
Professor Werner Gitt – Director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology – tells us that:“The highest information density known to us is that of DNA molecules…. The storage capacity of DNA, the information carriers of living things, is 4.5 x 10(to the 13th power) times more effective than a megachip!… The sum total of knowledge currently stored in the libraries of the world is estimated at 10(to the 18th power) bits. If this information could be stored in DNA molecules, 1% of the volume of a pinhead would be sufficient for this purpose. If, on the other hand, this information were to be stored with aid of megachips, we would need a pile higher than the distance between the earth and the moon.”The DNA molecule, of which even the simplest – some would say the most “primitive” – forms of life are composed, is thus 45 million million times more efficient at holding and conveying information than a megachip. This is because the DNA molecule is an incredibly complex three-dimensional information storage system, where the megachip is only two-dimensional. But the DNA molecules ability to store and convey such inconceivably large amounts of information so efficiently does not tell us where the itself comes from. What is the source of that?

Information Theory, of which Professor Gitt is one of the world’s leading exponents, is an important branch of scientific investigation which has shown conclusively and consistently that information cannot and does not arise from any state of non-information, just as life cannot proceed from non-life. Moreover, information has now come to be recognized as the Third Fundamental Quantity of the universe, which hitherto was thought to consist of merely two fundamental quantities, those of matter and energy. The DNA molecule is, of course, matter. Its activities are funded by energy. But the information that it carries is something else entirely. In other words, it is not sufficient to have only matter and energy for DNA to work. What is also required, at least to begin with, is a massive input of information for which matter and energy can give no account, and which neither of them can supply. Again, Professor Gitt:“According to Norbert Wiener, the founder of cybernetics and information theory, information cannot be of a physical nature, even though it is transmitted by physical means: ‘Information in information, neither matter nor energy. No materialism that fails to take account of this can survive the present day.’”Because of the increasing disillusionment with the role of chance, a shift took place in the late 60’s and the 70’s to the view that life was somehow the inevitable outcome of nature’s laws at work over vast spans of time. Terms such as “directed chance” and “biochemical predestination” have entered the scientific literature to mean that life was somehow the result of the inherent properties of matter.

But more discomforting still to the materialist, is not just the recent discovery of information to be the Third Fundamental Quantity, but rather the startling realization of its source:“If a basic code is found in any system, it can be concluded that the system originated from a mental concept, and did not arise by chance…. Meanings always represent mental concepts. They are distinct from matter and energy. They originate from an intelligent source. It is by means of language that information may be stored and transmitted on physical carriers. The information itself is invariant…. The reason for this invariance lies in its non-material nature.”It would seem then that while some materialists have been busy looking in all the wrong places, certain physicists have stumbled upon the Mind of God.

The problem with most of modern science is that the philosophy of reductionism is the ruling paradigm. According to George Williams, a scientist of some stature in the evolutionary community, the crucial object of selection in evolution is inherently non-material:“Evolutionary biologists have failed to realize that they work with two more or less incommensurable domains: that of information and that of matter…. These two domains can never be brought together in any kind of the sense usually implied by the term ‘reductionism.’ … The gene is a package of information, not an object. The pattern of base pairs in a DNA molecule specifies the gene. But the DNA molecule is the medium, its not the message…. Just the fact that fifteen years ago I started using a computer may have had something to do with my ideas here. The constant process of transferring information from one physical medium to another and then being able to recover the same information in the original medium brings home the separability of information and matter. In biology, when you’re talking about things like genes and genotypes and gene pools, you’re talking about information, not physical objective reality.”Perhaps evolutionary biologists have avoided noticing that information and matter are fundamentally different things because that insight is fatal to the whole reductionist project in biology. If the message is truly not reducible to the medium, then trying to explain the creation of the information by a materialistic theory is simply a category mistake. One might as well try to explain the origin of a literary work by invoking the chemical laws that govern the combining of ink and paper, and then proposing speculative hypotheses about how those laws (with boost from chance but without intelligence) might have generated meaningful sentences.


Fizban

03-29-2005, 11:46 PM

Haha. None of those are scientific; you can't rely on the lack of information to test your hypothesis.

Predictions:

1) That we will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. We can test design by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."

DNA can be reverse engineered all the way down to its base elements; these can be broken down to the Quarks that compose them in nuclear reactions. Not to mention this doesn't test the theory at all.

2) Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record,

This relies on not knowing information, for this to be valid we need to know:

1. Everything about Fossils
2. Everything about genetics

3) re-usage of similar parts in different organisms, and

This doesn't predict intelligent design.

4) Function for biological structures.

This doesn't predict intelligent design.

One is to claim that intelligent design is in principle untreatable. This seems to have been Scott's line in the early nineties. Certainly it is a hallmark of science that any of its claims is subject to revision or refutation on the basis of new evidence or further theoretical insight. If this is what one means by testability, then design is certainly testable.

NO, the use of lack of information is not a test for anything in science, the things in science that are later proved wrong are things that have been tested to be true at one point but later information interferes with it. But this is in no way a test FOR anything scientific.

The other way to interpret the testability objection is to claim that intelligent design may in principle be testable, but that no tests have been proposed to date. This seems to be Scott's line currently. Indeed, if the testability objection is to bear any weight, its force must reside in the absence of concrete proposals for testing intelligent design. Are such proposals indeed lacking? Rather than looking solely at the testability of intelligent design, I want also to consider the testability of Darwinism. By comparing the testability of the two theories, it will become evident that even the more charitable interpretation of Scott's testability objection does not hold up.

He completely avoids the topic at hand and goes back to debasing Darwinism (which is not evolution might I remind you).

Hypotheses must be testable and they must prove the topic at hand, you can't infer that because a test DOESN'T prove something wrong that it is a valid test.

Biological matter can be reproduced in the lab; scientists have successfully synthesized a variety of amino acids.

A prediction is not a hypothesis.

Also I remind you, that though you may be able to scientifically approach ID or Creationism they are metaphysical concepts and are not science regardless of the results. If the result is that a higher physical being created us, then we go back to what created it and so on. Eventually there was something natural that created everything or there is a metaphysical being that did it.

Give up man, the obviously biased materials you are producing are worthless. Not to mention many rely on someone's naivety to be true, if someone knows science then everything you posted has no substance.


boggy b

03-30-2005, 12:14 PM

If God created life, why did he make it so needlessly complex? That's what I would like to know.


Gaidin

03-30-2005, 01:56 PM

Simple projects that you can complete in the space of 5 minutes have no real value to them, be it from pride of completion or entertainment via work completing it.

I am not proud of my hello world programs...however that pain in the ass mini-paint program i wrote for Basic Graphics class that boosted me from a D to a B...you bet your ass that's going in my archive.


PapaGeorgio

03-30-2005, 02:28 PM

Fiz,

You have said it a few times, and you are misstating your case and the Intelligent Design case. I fear that you aren’t arguing against merely Intelligent Design, but if you follow your argument to its logical end (or at least part of your argument), you are saying that forensic science, artificial intelligence, cryptography, archeology, and the Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, are all fruitless endeavors. Because what you seem to be missing is that Intelligent Design isn’t arguing from a lack of information, but from everything we know thus far. science isn’t about the unknowable, it is about what science knows at this moment. And every thing that science and man’s experience points to is that where there is information – especially information as specified as what we find in, say, the flagellum – there is a scribe of that information.

From: http://www.ideacenter.org/about/mission_science.php
http://www.ideacenter.org/stuff/contentmgr/files/e27f61f0f0939817033df7d9eb921c58/misc/flagellum.jpeg

From: http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/graphics-captions/Flagellum.html
http://id-www.ucsb.edu/fscf/library/origins/IMAGES/N.gif

From: http://www.aip.org/mgr/png/2002/174.htm
http://www.aip.org/png/images/flagellum.jpg

I will quote from the site where I got the last graphic: Bacteria swim in viscous liquid environments by rotating helical propellers called flagella.

The bacterial flagellum is a nanomachine made of about 25 different proteins, each of them in multiple copies ranging from a few to tens of thousands. It is constructed by self-assembly of these large numbers of proteins, each into a different part that exerts a different function, such as a rotary motor, bushing, drive shaft, rotation-switch regulator, universal joint, helical propeller, and rotary promoter for self-assembly.

Flagellar proteins are synthesized within the cell body and transported through a long, narrow central channel in the flagellum to its distal (outer) end, where they self-assemble to construct complex nano-scale structures efficiently, with the help of the flagellar cap as the assembly promoter. The rotary motor, with a diameter of only 30 to 40 nm, drives the rotation of the flagellum at around 300 Hz, at a power level of 10-16 W with energy conversion efficiency close to 100 %.

The structural designs and functional mechanisms to be revealed in the complex machinery of the bacterial flagellum could provide many novel technologies that would become a basis for future nanotechnology, from which we should be able to find many useful applications.You are wrong Fiz when you said:Biological matter can be reproduced in the lab; scientists have successfully synthesized a variety of amino acids.Would you please site the specific case! Because I don’t know if you realize it or not, but in each case that amino acids or the like have been “created,” there have been conditions that a) either wasn’t known to exist in nature (and have been proven by the geological record never existed), or b) started with already existing conditions (parts of amino acids and an environment conducive to their combining). You are not showing me how an amino acid formed as scientists say they minimally need to. I will make my point with a paper I wrote a long time back, while you mention the “creation” of amino acids in passing as if it was an easy endeavor, lets see the type of conditions that are needed for the basics of life to begin:: EVOLUTION OF PROTOCELLS:
Protocells are the postulated link between complex (and other substances) and a first living cell. See below!
EVOLUTION OF THE GENETIC CODING SYSTEM:
The genetic coding system is essential for replicating of a living organism, yet its evolution is also plagued by serious problems that allow “endless speculation,” as Dickerson recognizes in an article entitled “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life”, Scientific American (SEPT., 1978) p.p. 70, 85: “The evolution of the genetic machinery is the step for which there are no laboratory models; hence we can speculate endlessly, unfettered by inconvenient facts.”

Sir Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of the keystone of the genetic coding system and a Nobel Prize recipient, agrees that the evolutionary development of the system is “…the major problem in understanding the origin of life.”

-all words in [ ] are mine-

FIRST
Evolution of the bases and sugars that are necessary elements of nucleotides, the ladder rungs of DNA, presents at least seven “difficulties” that Cairns-Smith [an evolutionist] summarizes (from the book Genetic Takeover and the Minerals of Life [1986]): Let us consider some of the difficulties. First, as we have seen, it is not even clear that the primitive Earth would have generated and maintained organic molecules. All that we can say is that there might have been prevital organic chemistry going on, at least in special locations. Second, high-energy precursors or purines and pyrimidines had to be produced in a sufficiently concentrated form (for example at least 0.01 M HNC). Third, the conditions must now have been right for reactions to give perceptible yields of at least two bases that could pair with each other [these conditions are different than when they formed… and the change from one to the other would destroy the material to be paired]. Fourth, these bases must then have been separated from the confusing jumble of similar molecules that would also have been made, and the solutions must have been sufficiently concentrated. Fifth, in some other location a formaldehyde concentration of above 0.01 M must have built up. Sixth, this accumulated formaldehyde had to oligomerise to sugars. Seventh, somehow the sugars must have been separated and resolved, so as to give a moderately good concentration of, for example, D-ribose…

SECOND
Evolution of nucleosides from bases and sugars raises at least three more difficulties, as the same author continues: Eighth, bases and sugars must now have come together. Ninth, they must have been induced to react to make nucleosides. (There are no known ways of bringing about this thermodynamically uphill reaction in aqueous solution: purine nucleosides have been made by dry-phase synthesis [this would destroy the bases and sugars], but not even this method has been successful for condensing pyrimiding bases and ribose to give nucleosides). Tenth, whatever the mode of joining [not theory, or even a hypothesis, non-science] base and sugar it had to be between the correct nitrogen atom of the base and the correct carbon atom of the sugar. This junction will fix the pentose sugar as either the a- or B-anomer of either the furanose or pyranose forms. For nucleic acids, it has to be the B-furanose. (In the dry-phase purine nucleoside synthesis referred to above, all four of these isomers were present with never more than 8 percent of the correct structure…

THIRD
Evolution of nucleotides from nucleotides and phosphate, and their purification, adds still more difficulties: Eleventh, phosphate must have been, or must now come to have been, present at reasonable concentration [which would stop the before said processes – keep in mind, oxygen in the atmosphere would have negated all this!!]. Twelfth, the phosphate must be activated in some way – for example as a linear or cyclic polyphosphate – so that (energetically uphill) phosphorylation of the nucleoside is possible. Thirteenth, to make standard nucleotides only the 5’-hydroxyl of the ribose should be phosphorylating agent, this was the dominant species to begin with. Longer heating gave the nucleoside cyclic 2’, 3’-phosphate as the major product although various dinucleotide derivatives and nucleoside polyphosphate are also formed. Fourteenth, if not already activated – for example 2’, 3’-phosphate – the nucleotides must now be activated and a reasonably pure solution of these species created of reasonable concentration. Alternatively, a suitable coupling agent must now have been fed into the system…

FOURTH
Evolution of nucleotide chains and the necessary conditions involve complex biochemical events: fifteenth, the activated nucleotides (or the nucleotides with coupling agent) must now have polymerized. Initially this must have happened without a pre-existing polynucleotide template (this has proved very difficult to simulate): but more important, it must have come to take place on pre-existing polynucleotides if the key function of transmitting information to daughter molecules was to be achieved by abiotic means. This has proved difficult as well. Orgel and Lohrmann give three main classes of problem. (i) While it has been shown that adenosine derivatives form stable helical structures with poly(U) – they are in fact triple helixes – and while this enhances the condensation of adenylic acid with either adenosine or another adenylic acid – mainly to di(A) – stable helical structures were not formed when either poly(A) or poly(G) were used as templates. (ii) It was difficult to find a suitable means of making the internucleotide bonds…. (iii) Internucleotide bonds formed on a template are usually a mixture of 2’-5’ and the normal 3’-5’ types. Often the 2’-5’ bonds predominate although it has been found that Zn2+, as well as acting as an efficient catalyst for the template directed oligormerisation of guanosine 5’-phosphorimidazolide also leads to a preference for the 3’-5’ bonds. Sixteenth, the physical and chemical environment must at all times have been suitable – for example the pH, the temperature, the M2+ concentrations. Seventeenth, all reactions must have taken place well out of the ultraviolet sunlight; that is, not only away from its direct , highly destructive affects on nucleic acid-like molecules, but away too from the radicles produced by the sunlight, and from the various longer lived reactive species produced by these radicals….

Moreover, the nucleotide chain must be in very precise order to be biologically meaningful. And it is “unlikely that any build-up of nucleic acid components could take place over a long period of time in an aqueous environment,” Shapiro concludes (“Damage to DNA Caused by Hydrolysis,” in Chromosome Damage and Repair 3, p.17).

FIFTH
Evolution of the gene-protein link had to occur, although that is “shrouded in almost complete mystery” according to Scott: “None has ever been recreated in the laboratory, and the evidence supporting them all is very thin. Ther emergence of the gene-protein link, an absolutely vital stage on the way up from lifeless atoms to ourselves, is still shrouded in almost complete mystery.” Discussion of the origin of the genetic code requires discussion of the origin of the complicated mechanism of protein synthesis (Crick and Woese note the same).

SIXTH
Evolution of the translation machinery is “difficult to imagine” and is a “riddle,” but the “code is meaningless unless translated,” as Monod (a Nobel Prize laureate) stresses:“The code is meaningless unless translated. The modern cell’s translating machinery consists of at least fifty macromolecular components which are themselves coded in DNA: the code cannot be translated otherwise than by products of translation. It is the modern expression of omne vivum ex ovo. When and how did this circle become closed? It is exceedingly difficult to imagine.” (Chance and Necessity, p.143)“Thus the code cannot be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a really baffling circle: a vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model, or a theory, of the genesis of the genetic code,” as Popper has noted (“Scientific Reproduction and the Essential Incompleteness of All Science,” in Studies in the Philosophy of Biology, p.1), and as Ambrose has concurred (The Nature and Origin of the Biological World, p.135).

Part of the translating machinery is the “system of enzymatic proof-reading and editing” that minimizes translation errors, which Perutz describes in “Physics and the Riddle of Life,” Nature magazine. Its origin is a major unsolved problem [even to this day], Lambert comments:“The derivation of contemporary biological information transfer systems from prebiological systems lacking editing reactions thus constitutes an unresolvable problem in theoretical biology. The prebiological system appears to face dissolution and death rather than refinement as a consequence of its nonspecific information transfer. It is far from clear that the proposals entertained herein or even any combination thereof, suffice to account for the chance evolution of life in the light of enzymatic editing mechanisms and the implications thereof. Gallant & Prothero allude to the question of whether primordial translation systems might degenerate toward randomness and conclude ‘… it is beyond question that error feedback must provide such evolutionary possibilities. If it did not, then we would not be here to ponder the question’ [no bias in that statement! Even though there is no evidence of evolution, it must be true because here we are!]. presumably these possibilities remain to be discovered as more precise information concerning biological accuracy is forthcoming. [Or] Possibly, ans assertion of Woes regarding the origin of the genetic code, that ‘one’s basic biological prejudices must be reexamined’ [like Gallant and Prothero?]. In either event, a consideration of enzymatic editing mechanisms as they relate to the origin of biological information transfer reveals a major unresolved problem in theoretical biology.” (“Enzymatic Editing Mechanisms and the Origin of Bioogical Information Transfer,” in Journal of Theoretical Biology)

SEVENTH
No intermediate forms with partial functionability appear to be possible. Particularly in view of the inapplicability of natural selection: eighteenth, unlike polypeptides, where you can easily imagine function for imprecisely made products (for capsules, ion-exchange materials, etc.), a genetic material must work rather well to be any use at all – otherwise it will quickly let slip any information that it has managed to accumulate. Nineteenth, what is required here is not some wild one-off freak of an event [or even many]: it is not true to say “it only had to happen once.” A Whole set-up had to be maintained for perhaps millions of years: a reliable means of production of activated nucleotides at the least.

Furthermore, no alternative ways of building up nucleotides appear to exist: Now you may say that there are alternative ways of building nucleotides, and perhaps there was some geochemical way on the early Earth. But what we know of the experimental difficulties in nucleotide synthesis speak strongly against any such supposition. However it is to be put together, a nucleotide is too complex and metastable a molecule for there to be any reason to expect an easy synthesis. You might want to argue about the nineteen problems that I chose [Cairns-Smith chose]: and I agree that there is a certain arbitrariness in the sequence of operations chosen. But if in the compounding of improbabilities nineteen is wrong as a number that would be mainly because it is much too small a number. If you were to consider in more detail a process such as the purification of an intermediate you would find many subsidiary operations – washings, pH changes and so on. Merrifield’s machine says for one overall reaction, making one peptide bond, there were about 90 distinct operations required. Each of these operations were performed with information “in mind, an end process in sight, if you will,” in other words, all 90 parts had to work all at once. There could be no small step by step build up.

Thus, what is left is the “gigantic implausibility of prevital nucleic acids,” and the misinterpreted origin of life experiments actually show “just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible,” in Cairns-Smith words:[list]“The implausibility of prevital nucleic acid I fit is hard to imagine polypeptides or polysaccharides in primordial waters it is harder still to imagine polynucleotides. But so powerful has been the effect of Miller’s experiment on the scientific imagination that to read some of the literature on the origin of life (including many elementary texts) you might think that it had been well demonstrated that nucleotides were probable constituents of a primordial soup [/i][of course fish and plants have been found in the Cambrian as well as iron bands… so oxygen was present, thus making all the above even more improbable. Man made items have been found in the Cambrian as well as the pre-Cambrian.] and hence that prevital nucleic acid replication was a plausible speculation based on the results of experiments. There have indeed been many interesting and detailed experiments in this area. But the importance of this work lies, to my mind, not in demonstrating how nucleotides could have formed on the primitive Earth, but in precisely the opposite: these experiments allow us too see, in much greater detail than would otherwise have been possible, just why prevital nucleic acids are highly implausible.”GO ON?
I haven’t even stepped into the world of the living cell yet. The before mentioned quotes and works by evolutionary scientists who are quite candid that they are hitting boundaries in the evolutionary explanation of, supposedly simple, chemicals that make and guide life. I got a lot of the above information from the deposition of W. R. Bird, who argued the major case on the issue before the U. S. Supreme Court to allow not religious creationism, but Intelligent Design to be taught side-by-side with the evolutionary model of origins. Even criticisms of evolution are not currently allowed, it is more of a dogma than the Virgin Birth – because the Virgin Birth can be criticized in school, the evolutionary theory cannot! Go figure?!


boggy b

03-30-2005, 02:49 PM

Simple projects that you can complete in the space of 5 minutes have no real value to them, be it from pride of completion or entertainment via work completing it.

I am not proud of my hello world programs...however that pain in the ass mini-paint program i wrote for Basic Graphics class that boosted me from a D to a B...you bet your ass that's going in my archive.
Yes, but what you have with life is needless complexity. Rather like writing 1,000,000 lines of code, only 10,000 of which actually do anything, let alone do anything useful!


Gaidin

03-30-2005, 03:04 PM

Yes, but what you have with life is needless complexity. Rather like writing 1,000,000 lines of code, only 10,000 of which actually do anything, let alone do anything useful!
go back to the paint program for that one. For a paint program, all you need is a simple 8 color "make this pixel a certain color" program. However, we have progrems like Corel that perform many different operations beyond setting a pixel color. You can do everything Corel does by just setting each and every individual pixel through a basic paint interface, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Complexity is not necessarily a bad thing.


boggy b

03-30-2005, 04:07 PM

go back to the paint program for that one. For a paint program, all you need is a simple 8 color "make this pixel a certain color" program. However, we have progrems like Corel that perform many different operations beyond setting a pixel color. You can do everything Corel does by just setting each and every individual pixel through a basic paint interface, but that doesn't necessarily make it right. Complexity is not necessarily a bad thing.
No, I don't think you're understanding me. It's like writing 1000x more code than you need, regardless of what program you need. A 1000 line Hello World. A 1000000 line paint program, a billion line Corel Draw.


PapaGeorgio

03-30-2005, 04:10 PM

bobby g, please tell me you aren’t referencing “junk DNA”? Because I get all the science magazines and journals (Scientific American, Discovery, Nature, and the like), and “Junk DNA” is a fading, and fading fast, outmoded theory.

Gotta go to work, see you guys later.


boggy b

03-30-2005, 05:07 PM

bobby g, please tell me you aren’t referencing “junk DNA”? Because I get all the science magazines and journals (Scientific American, Discovery, Nature, and the like), and “Junk DNA” is a fading, and fading fast, outmoded theory.

Gotta go to work, see you guys later.
No I am pretty certain that junk DNA is mostly used, but we haven't discovered its use yet.

But there are a large number of proteins that there are no use for. Simply none.


Fizban

03-30-2005, 07:02 PM

Amazing papa. You completly drug the topic off hand relating unrelated information and thus claiming to prove your stance.

You've put words in my mouth in which I never said, forensics does not deal with metaphysics does it? Artificial intelligence does not deal with metaphysics. Cryptography, does not deal with metaphysics. Archeology, does not deal with metaphysics. The Search for Extra-Terrestrial Intelligence, is not science.

Intelligent design as in the creation of the physical universe is metaphysical in nature, and thus NOT SCIENCE.

If you want to refute this for future reference:

1. Do not relate unrelated information.
2. Do not claim I am claiming things I do not.
3. Do not drag the debate away from the topic at hand.

Everything you posted there is NOT A TEST FOR ID. As such you still fail to make ID into a hypothesis, and even if you did it's a metaphysical science and it would be a hypothesis to theology but nothing to science.

You're getting more and more annoying Papa and losing credibility quickly.


Gaidin

03-30-2005, 07:14 PM

Intelligent design as in the creation of the physical universe is metaphysical in nature, and thus NOT SCIENCE.

Is science application not science?

Intelligent Design at its core is merely a highly complex engineering project. Which, by the way, is far easier to conceptually prove and believe then accidental evolution ever was.


Fizban

03-30-2005, 07:16 PM

I talked with gaidin:

Just to clear things up.

I'm specifically supporting Evolution as the creation of life and from that point on more complex life.

I DO NOT support evolution as the thing responsible for the creation of the basic non living universe.

ID deals with the creation of the universe and the creation of life by one metaphysical being, so I do not support it because of the creation of life part.

Creationism deals with the creation of the universe and the creation of life by God in a period of 7 days giving the earth an age of 6000 years or whatever.

Hoping to clear up that mis-understanding.

But regardless anything that deals with the creation of the universe is unscientific. The purpose of science is to explain natural phenomena, and cannot explain anything with concepts such as infinity.

To illustrate the problems science has with Infinity (a metaphysical concept) science puts constraints on everything for the purpose of calculations. The maximum speed, the minimum speed, the minimum measurement etc etc.

EDIT: Papa, you're mixing creationism and ID together which is why I was freaking out.

Intelligent design's part on the creation of life is untestable and therefore unscientific.


PapaGeorgio

04-01-2005, 01:39 PM

Fiz said: But regardless anything that deals with the creation of the universe is unscientific. The purpose of science is to explain natural phenomena, and cannot explain anything with concepts such as infinity.This is methodological naturalism. Which is not a scientific position, it is a philosophical presupposition that true science knows nothing of.

“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic” (Kansan State University immunologist, Scott Todd, correspondence to Nature, 410 [6752], 30 September, 1999).

I will illustrate with a mock conversation between a science professor and a student:Professor: “Miracles are impossible Sean, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them .”

Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?”

Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.”

Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?”

Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’”

Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible”

(Norman L. Geisler & Peter Bocchino, [i]Unshakeable Foundations: Contemporary Answers to Crucial Questions About the Christian Faith. Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bethany House (2001), pp. 63-64).So an honest “atheist” [philosophical naturalist] would realize that his position is philosophical / presuppositional (presuppose – to suppose or assume beforehand; take for granted in advance), and not rationally nor logically defensible. Plato was right, “atheism is a disease of the soul before it is an error of the mind.” Another syllogistic example is in order before we go on to deal with agnosticism. The atheist can be shown that his starting point – presupposition – interferes with how he views evidence; much like the above example, biased philosophy is the guiding force rather than systematic investigation:
Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.

Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,

Conclusion: there is no God.

(Robert A. Morey, The New Atheism: And the Erosion of Freedom. Phillipsburg, New Jersey: P & R (1986), p. 57.)

Ref: My paper on atheism


Fizban

04-01-2005, 04:18 PM

Fiz said:This is methodological naturalism. Which is not a scientific position, it is a philosophical presupposition that true science knows nothing of.


2. No it's not
3. Science as defined is explaining natural phenomena.


1. The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena.
2. Such activities restricted to a class of natural phenomena.
3. Such activities applied to an object of inquiry or study.

# Methodological activity, discipline, or study: I've got packing a suitcase down to a science.
# An activity that appears to require study and method: the science of purchasing.
# Knowledge, especially that gained through experience.

I've read your whole quote twice now, and it's annoying.

1. I'm not an atheist.
2. I never made that claim.

Professor: “Miracles are impossible Sean, don’t you know science has disproven them, how could you believe in them .” [i]I NEVER SAID THIS, as such the whole discussion between the two is invalid and unrelated.

Student: “for clarity purposes I wish to get some definitions straight. Would it be fair to say that science is generally defined as ‘the human activity of seeking natural explanations for what we observe in the world around us’?”

Professor: “Beautifully put, that is the basic definition of science in every text-book I read through my Doctoral journey.”

Student: “Wouldn’t you also say that a good definition of a miracle would be ‘and event in nature caused by something outside of nature’?”

Professor: “Yes, that would be an acceptable definition of ‘miracle.’”

Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible”

This would be my response to the last statement
Professor: "I never said that there is not anything outside of miracles, but if there is, there's no plausible way to measure them in calculations of any sort. They're metaphysical concepts. Though I'm inclined to believe that they don't exist due to this fact.

Premise: Since there is no God,

Conclusion: all theistic proofs are invalid.

Premise: Since the theistic proofs are invalid,

Conclusion: there is no God.


1. I don't make that assumption, I'm not atheist
2. The reason all theistic proofs are invalid from a scientific stand point is b/c of their metaphysical nature. They're simply not plausible and cannot be measured or tested in any plausible way.
3. They are not science and science does not deal with them if it can help it. There are many places where science is either forced to deal with them or come up with an equally unmeasurable answer. (creation of the universe) But that does not make it science.


boggy b

04-17-2005, 08:43 AM

Student: “But since you do not believe that anything outside of nature exists [materialism, dialectical materialism, empiricism, existentialism, naturalism, and humanism – whatever you wish to call it], you are ‘forced’ to conclude that miracles are impossible” Empiricism does not exclude the existance of God. There are empiricist threories that include a God.

Just wanted to clear that up.


Harbinger

04-17-2005, 12:22 PM

Fizban, you are getting on my nerves. This is a warning: you are being ignorant by not reading or considering anything given to you honestly, and normally I'd let it slide, but that's all you seem to do here. This isn't your litter box, so grow up or get out.


Gaidin

04-17-2005, 01:12 PM

Wow....delayed reaction harb?


Fizban

04-17-2005, 01:17 PM

Apparently...

BtW harb I checked out 3 of the books papag listed from the salem library.

::Good, keep reading::

What I meant was I think they're all still bullshit.


tokyojim

05-13-2005, 11:13 PM

Fizban, let me jump in here. I have reviewed a little of this thread and I find it interesting that you are so intent on proving that ID is not science. And of course if we go with the currently accepted definition of science, you might be right. Because "science" as you want us to believe, precludes the involvement of any supernatural forces or intelligence. It is of course a clever ploy so you can try and belittle those who do believe that God had a role in the emergence and development of life.

OK, so therefore ID is not science.

Then my dear sir, listen carefully!
If you make that claim, then on the other side of the coin,
you must be willing to admit that perhaps science does not have the answer to the problem of the emergence and develolpment of life.[/U] Why?

[Simply because you cannot prove that God had no role in the emergence and development of life.

B]How interesting! [/B]

You cannot prove one of the most foundational assumptions in all of science and yet you want us to worship at Charlie's feet along with you.[/B]

Call me a wimp. Call me a man of little faith. Call me whatever you want, but I'm sorry, I'm not interested!

I guess when it comes down to it, I just don't have as much faith as you - in naturalistic processes that is. I think it makes much more sense to believe in a Creator with intelligence, purpose, personality, and power. So, I cannot join you and your fellow "scientists" as you submit your intellect to Naturalism. You can't prove naturalism is true, so you have to take it by faith. So the possibility clearly exists that evolutionists could be looking for answers where there are none.

By arbitrarily removing God from the equation, you could very well have cut off all hope of ever coming up with a right answer. You could very well have condemned "scientists" to a hopeless task. You could have just doomed yourselves to a lifetime of fruitless headbanging!:banghead:

And this of course is the claim of IDers. They believe God was involved in the emergence and development of life. Now, I admit, just as you cannot prove that God was not involved, IDers and creationists cannot prove that He was. Is naturalism right or is there a God who was involved in creation of life? That is the question of the ages that will continue to be debated for a long time to come.

In reality, the whole ID debate really goes back to a difference of worldviews.

Does the researcher allow for the involvement of a supernatural force/God or not? Both sides have to take their position by faith.

So, Fizban, 'fess up man! I want to hear you admit it loud and clear.[/CENTER]

I have prepared this written statement for you to sign off on:
As a scientist who can only consider natural causes for the emergence and development of life, I do hereby declare that "science" as we define it, may not ever be able to answer the question of our origin and development." The fundamental premise of science that limits itself to considering only natural causes cannot be proved and could possibily be wrong.


[U]If "scientists" want to make these claims that ID is not science, fine, but then they have to be willing to admit that science may not have the answer to the problem of the emergence and development of life.

[B]Fizban, if you are not willing to admit that, then quit your bellyaching about ID not being "science". You can't have your cake and eat it too.

My opinion of course, but I think that naturalists, atheists, agnostics, and materialists are fishing for whales in a lake. You can fish all you want for as long as you want and use all kinds of up to date fishing processes, but there ain't no whale there.

[CENTER] I think that in choosing naturalism, you made a choice that precludes you from ever coming up with the right answer to the mystery of life.

You think differently for whatever reason. Fine. We both approach the subject with a bias that we cannot prove. It is just that scientists don't want to admit that. This is their own little dirty secret because if this gets out, they lose a lot of authority and evolutionary science at least can no longer make truth claims about the origin and development of life.

ID may not be "science" as mainstream scientists have defined it, but it is just as valid an idea as "science" when it comes to understanding our origin and place in the universe. Whether you call it "science" or not, until you can prove your worldview is true, ID deserves consideration just as much as "science".

tj


Fizban

05-27-2005, 01:18 AM

I think I admitted that several times, I stated it was more logical.

For future reference normal font sizes, and font types would be nice. Also repeating the same thing 20 times doesn't make it right.

ID deals with the creation of the universe specifically, everything else (abiogenesis, diversity of life) is included depending on whos definition you use. While it deserves consideration in the creation of the univserse, in abiogenesis and diversity of life is much easier explained by basic scientific theories.

Personally I subscribe to the theory time doesn't exist and the universe is infinate and simply exists, nothing created it. I think we limit ourselfs saying that something had to.


Ancalagon_The_Black

05-28-2005, 02:47 AM

But if the universe always existed, and thus there have been an infinite number of physical processes, how do we get to Now?

If you think about the question, you'll see that infinity is not a physically applicable concept.


Fizban

05-29-2005, 12:47 PM

Or merely a concept you can't grasp.

Time is nonexistant. Bedmonds is better at explaining it than me but anyways.

Because of the fact time is nonexistant, doing things at high speeds actually slows your aging down, wraping light around an infinate curve allows you to view the future etc. Time is a concept we provide ourselves with to help explain earth.

The universe does not need to follow earth's rules.

It is litterally infinate.


Ancalagon_The_Black

05-30-2005, 09:49 PM

I'm not talking only about time. I'm talking about infinity in its relation to NOW, which is to say, all the physical reactions that brought about the universe as it is right now, this very moment. You can hide behind the screen of enigma and mystery, as many accuse religion of doing, but there comes a point when, by denying the very logic that your ability to reason is founded upon, you destroy all sense of intelligibility in the universe.


One day, you want to borrow a book from your friend. You can only borrow the book, however, if your friend has likewise borrowed that very same book from someone else who, as with you and your friend, has borrowed the book. This same rule applies to everyone borrowing a book; they can only borrow it from someone who has also borrowed it. Each person must borrow a book from someone else. Will you EVER get this book?!

No. You will not. By the very nature of the book-borrowing expirement, you can never, ever, get the book from your friend.


Now look at the above example. The book is a physical reaction. There is no physical effect without a preceding cause, which, in turn, cannot come into effect without another effect acting upon it. These effects stretch back farther and farther into time.

If the universe, and thus time, is infinite, than you never get any effect, you never get a NOW because the physical reactions required to bring it about rely on an infinite number of preceding causes. You never get your book, you never get your Now.

Thus the universe, in all its physical reactions, causes, motives and effects, cannot be infinite.


Knight of Dawn

05-31-2005, 11:13 AM

Then are you saying nobody receives the book?

If this logic is applied to every person waiting for the book, then nobody receives the book. If nobody receives the book, then the situation you state above cannot work.


boggy b

07-03-2005, 01:17 PM

I'm not talking only about time. I'm talking about infinity in its relation to NOW, which is to say, all the physical reactions that brought about the universe as it is right now, this very moment. You can hide behind the screen of enigma and mystery, as many accuse religion of doing, but there comes a point when, by denying the very logic that your ability to reason is founded upon, you destroy all sense of intelligibility in the universe.


One day, you want to borrow a book from your friend. You can only borrow the book, however, if your friend has likewise borrowed that very same book from someone else who, as with you and your friend, has borrowed the book. This same rule applies to everyone borrowing a book; they can only borrow it from someone who has also borrowed it. Each person must borrow a book from someone else. Will you EVER get this book?!

No. You will not. By the very nature of the book-borrowing expirement, you can never, ever, get the book from your friend.


Now look at the above example. The book is a physical reaction. There is no physical effect without a preceding cause, which, in turn, cannot come into effect without another effect acting upon it. These effects stretch back farther and farther into time.

If the universe, and thus time, is infinite, than you never get any effect, you never get a NOW because the physical reactions required to bring it about rely on an infinite number of preceding causes. You never get your book, you never get your Now.

Thus the universe, in all its physical reactions, causes, motives and effects, cannot be infinite.
So what caused the first cause?


Ancalagon_The_Black

07-04-2005, 06:34 PM

Nothing caused the first cause because by definition it cannot have been caused. In the order of the physical universe, things are caused by other things. But we have seen that the chain of causality goes backward in the direction of a single cause, a cause that brought about all others.

To answer your question, by the very nature of the First Cause, or "Prime Mover", the First Cause was a cause unto itself. It is a necessary being, meaning, it causes its own existence by the necessity of its own existence.


boggy b

07-10-2005, 04:48 PM

Nice argument there. First you argue that everything must have a cause, and then decide that one thing didn't have a cause.


Ancalagon_The_Black

07-11-2005, 03:28 AM

You missed my point entirely.

The fact that everything is contingent on something else that is contingent necessitates, by the very nature of the situation, an UNCAUSED CAUSE. Something that isn't contingent on anything else.

To put it simply, if everything in the physical universe needs a cause, then there must be something outside of the universe that doesn't need a cause in order for the universe to exist. Otherwise, if the causes keep going backward into infinity, you never get an effect.

So, if you want to argue, you must argue against my first statement that everything in the physical universe is contingent on something else for its existence.


boggy b

07-11-2005, 08:59 AM

I had the fallacy that you're expressing explained to me once, I'll see if I can find the person who dispelled it for me and get them to explain it again (your 'an infinite cause/effect chain means nothing happens' claim.)

But, from what I understand, what your claiming is not that there was a 'creator' but that the universe must have 'started' at some point, through some process or another?


Ancalagon_The_Black

07-12-2005, 12:50 AM

Well, I believe that the process was initiated by a Creator, but scientists have been trying for some time to come up with an explenation by which you wouldn't need God. Some aspects of String Theory supposedly do so, but I'm skeptical. In short, it says something like before the Big Bang singularity the universe was in a state where all the four cosmic forces (gravity, eloctromagnetism, strong+weak force) were united as a single force, and then somehow it distablized, splitting up into four forces in the Big Bang. The only problem with this is that if all four forces were united, there would be complete equilibrium and thus the Big Bang could not occur without an outside, separate force acting upon it, which would basically contradict the theory itself.

But anyways, if the universe did start at a certain point in time, its hard to imagine how it could be so without a creator, know what I mean? Because if the universe began at a single moment in time, then before then there was...nothing. Absolute Nil. Which is pretty hard to imagine (or impossible to imagine). And if that was the case, then, the only way the universe could have begun is if some force, enirely OUTSIDE the universe and in no ways contingent upon it, put it in motion, or was the "First Cause." Because something cannot come from nothing unless some force with an intellect and a will brings it about (some force that is omnipotent--able to create the universe).

So yeah...I believe that this First Cause that set the universe in motion is what we call God.


boggy b

07-19-2005, 05:46 PM

The problem, however, with introducing a creator is that you have not actually solved the problem, merely moved it. Yes, the universe would now have a creator, but the creator would not, and by your own premises must now be given another creator. This causes an infinite regress.

Before you (as I suspect you will) claim that the creator is somehow not subject to this premise, answer these two questions:
A) What reason to do you have to suggest that any creator is not affected by your previous assertion?
B) Why should not the Big Bang (or any other non-metaphysical creation of the universe) also be affected by this premise?


Ancalagon_The_Black

07-20-2005, 07:47 PM

A.) The premise itself necessitates a creator who is self-causing. In clearer terms, the premise is that _If something exists, there must exist what it takes for it to exist_. That is, this something is contingent, reliant on something else for its existence. Now, I take as a given, and I believe you do too, that the universe exists. Therefor, according to the argument, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.

But this something cannot itself be a part of, or contained within, the universe. The universe cannot contain within itself that which causes the universe to exist. That would mean that something in the universe is necessary, if it causes itself and all the universe to exist. But to be necessary it must mean that its nonexistence would imply a contradiction in any case. The nonexistence of, say, matter, implies no contradiction. However, according to the argument, if matter (contingent) existed but God did not, all that exists contingently would be impossible or contradictry, and thus not justifiable logically. See what I mean?

So, the Creator itself cannot need a Creator because that's self-contradictory. Its like saying you can have a three sided circle. Because in the universe, all effects need a preceding cause, you need a Uncaused Cause in order to bring the universe into existence. It is necessary because we observe the universe exists.

Your second question I'm not sure I understand correctly. The Big Bang is effected by this premise. In fact, the Big Bang theory supports it, that the universe began at a finite point in time, before which, there was nothing. But again I don't fully understand what you mean with this question, are you saying the Big Bang and other theories somehow negate the necessity for a Creator?


Jean

07-27-2005, 06:54 PM

The universe is infinite, and therefore god must exist, every god must exist and everything must hold as true.

It's impossible to say there's a beginning or end to the universe, debating big bang and the first days of genesis is utterly pointless. The Big Bang, may be true, or the first days of genesis may be true, and probably are, but our understanding of this is minimal at best. Existance doesn't just happen, it is. Creation, The Big Bang, both are probably events in the endless timeline of the universe.

If people would concede this point and shut up about it the world would be a better place.

1 in infinity is going to happen regardless of how improbable it is.


Ancalagon_The_Black

07-28-2005, 05:05 PM

Infinite? Explain infinite. Infinite in magnitude? In what way is it infinite?

I think you mean eternal, as in, it has always been and always will be. In which case, I have made arguments against your position already. However, maybe you could elaborate further? Because the Creation story of Genesis is clearly contradictory to your belief, and can't be true if the universe is in fact eternal...

EDIT: And on your first point, that the universe is infinite and therefore God must exist...is that really true? I fail to see how the existence of God is determined necessarily from that condition.

You could say, maybe, that the universe, while infinite, is still a collection of contingent beings, thus requiring a non-contingent being to support its "infinite existence." That would be my position on the matter. But you seem to have quite a different idea...


Jean

07-28-2005, 08:17 PM

...

No. Imagine it mathmatically. Since 0 doesn't exist the closest thing you can get to it is a finite number over infinity, even so when your universe is infinite (all encompassing, unlimited, infinite in time and space) you have infinate possibilities of answers to your question (however you want to phrase it), as such since infinite is all if god exists or not isn't a question. Anything you can imagine, and things you probably can't are included in infinity. Somewhere in the universe theres a money tree and a forest of money trees, and a fleet of money tree battle cruisers.

1. The universe was never simply made.
2. An event called genesis and big bang are both probable but not for the creation of the universe, perhaps genesis applies to this dimension, and big bang another (or visa versa), but the fact remains there are infinite dimensions, infinite rules.
3. Stop looking at the universe as a measurable thing. You can't measure it. In time or space, both of those are things that happen within the universe, but do not dictate it.

My whole point is that the universe is infinite. In every way, if you searched each of those infinate number of beings you'd find your god, and every other god ever concieved. I don't think you're comprehending infinity.


Ancalagon_The_Black

07-30-2005, 01:35 AM

So according to you're theory....

There is a world where Barny the dinosaur actually exists, and rules an empire of enslaved robot Lemurs.

There is a world where Ninjas and Vikings wage a constant war against eachother, locked in eternal combat forever.

There is a world where John Kerry is President of the United States.

There is a world that consists entirely of Pikachu. One. Big. Pikachu.

There is a world where Rosie O'Donnel is President of the United states.

There is a world where someone exactly like me has a lightsaber... Sweet!

There is a world where cirE doesn't spam.

Which begs the question...why is this world so goddamn boring??


In all seriousness...I don't think you're model of the universe can work. Because by definition, God, as in an eternal, omnipotent entity that created the universe out of nothing, has to exist everywhere, and there cannot be anything or any place beyond him. That is by definition.

So to that extent, you're right, God must exist according to you're theory. Because he cannot not exist. There cannot, however, be some "dimension" or "plain of existence" where he does NOT exist because by definition God must be everywhere. And he must be the ONLY God, also by definition.

And consider this. According to your theory, there must be some universe or dimension where a race of aliens has invaded all other universes or dimensions. But this is clearly not the case because our own universe obviously has not been invaded. But because there is infinite possibilities it must be...right?

You're theory implies too many contradictions to be true, because no matter how many possibilities there are, you still have the basic rules of logic to deal with. And you cannot sweep those away because otherwise you have denied the existence of everything...even you're own theory which is supposedly founded on the same principles.


boggy b

08-11-2005, 07:36 PM

Your second question I'm not sure I understand correctly. The Big Bang is effected by this premise. In fact, the Big Bang theory supports it, that the universe began at a finite point in time, before which, there was nothing. But again I don't fully understand what you mean with this question, are you saying the Big Bang and other theories somehow negate the necessity for a Creator?
The question is, why should a physical (not metaphysical) reason be ruled out as the cause of the universe? It's possible that there was a cause to this also, not in our universe (or something that we don't understand and doesn't fit with the Cause/Effect premise.)


Ancalagon_The_Black

08-12-2005, 11:30 PM

Well its hard to imagine such a physical cause. Because even if it came from some other universe, it runs into the same problems a physical cause does in this universe. Its just pressing the problem onto another universe.

And explain to me how it might not fit with the cause/effect line of reasoning?


Jean

08-13-2005, 04:00 PM

My point, is that no matter what you say, you could be right, that this discussion is pointless, that the universe is infinite. Think about infinity for awhile and the possibilities, and what I meant was every event no matter how improbable still has a possibility of occuring in the universe.

Therefore its impossible to say, the universe was created due to this. Perhaps this galaxy was created due to this, or this dimension, but as soon as you deal with infinity, all mathmatical and scientific law is thrown out the window. So it's utterly pointless to debate whether the universe was created by god, or an event.

How life was created and how it continues to evolve does not have a all inclusive answer. Short of witnessing it happen in our galaxy, short of witnessing it happen in all galaxies, its an answer of what's most likely and what you want to believe.


Ancalagon_The_Black

08-15-2005, 06:19 PM

^^If that's the case, than your theory is meaningless. If you can't study anything scientifically, and any explanation is possible, than that's basically no explanation. If Something can mean Anything, it means Nothing.

Its like saying something exists and doesn't exist at the same time--meaningless and useless.


KnightHawk

08-27-2005, 01:55 PM

Let me pose a question.

Let's say for the moment we all recognize the fact that we can't prove the manner in which the world came into being. Creationism, evolution, the big bang, and the like have as much chance as being true as my own personal theory, Marshmellowism, the belief all life came from Marshmallows. First, there were mini-marshmallows, which formed marshmallows, which formed into smores, which in turn evolved into MoonPies, which then formed into the marshmallow Easter egg, then sprouted arms and became human. While this may be somewhat absurd, if I tried hard enough, I'm sure I'd be able to prove it in much the same manner creationism and evolution has been proved: biasedly and incompletely.

The debate is pointless because it simply goes around in endless circles. The truth of the matter is, it really doesn't matter where we came from so much as it matters where we're going. What matters is the things we do in this life, not how we came into being so many years ago.

Further more, evolution is neither incompatible nor compatible with the Christian religion--it neither proves nor disproves God's existence. The belief that evolution doesn't fit with god was because, back in the day, some jackass came up with the idea that the world has never changed, that God made it perfect the first time, so no changes were required. By this logic, the idea of evolution was an abomination because it suggested God was fallible.

This is a simplistic and childlike stance to take in such an endlessly complex world, and I refuse to debate it, because if you buy that, then you're a jackass. Look around you for Christ's sake. The world is ever changing, and is never the same one moment to the next. The only constant is the beauty with which we are presented and the fact things change.

I'm not a Christian. I'm agnostic. The only belief system I reject outright is atheism. To me, this life is too meaningful to have sprouted up from the chaos with no rhyme or reason. There is a higher power, but like the world it's given us, it's too complex to ever be quantified--which is the exact goal of organized religion. Hell, Catholics have made a science out of belief, and to me, it's rather disgusting.

With all of that said, let me pose my question:

If we can't prove it, either religiously or scientifically, if in either case it's belief based on incomplete evidence, why the hell does it matter? Just live fucking life and let questions of how and why work themselves out.

As for teaching creationism or evolution in school, it's my belief they should both be taught, but in the proper class. Creationism is a belief--no matter what spin you want to put on it, it's a philosophy, and therefore should be taught in a philosophy classroom, along with the ideals of other religions, such as Shintoism and Buddhism. Evolution is an incomplete science—like all sciences—and should be taught there. Period. Science is the new god and new religion of the world, fraught with as many “I think so’s”, and “sorta kindas” as hard fact, so why not put it there?

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


Phyvo

08-27-2005, 02:50 PM

There is a higher power, but like the world it's given us, it's too complex to ever be quantified--which is the exact goal of organized religion.

Actually, as a Christian I make it my objective not to "quantize" God, because "quantizing" God is not Biblical. Sure, there's that whole trinity business, but that not only obfiscates whether God is three or one, it also has not much to do with actually quantizing God's other characteristics. Even if there God was simply one, I don't believe that would be much of a quantizing problem (since what's important not to quantize his characteristics), so I'll move on.

I haven't seen a single place in the Bible which states that man is able to quantize or, more or less, comprehend God. In fact, there are so many places where it says to the contrary that I cannot list them all. It actually occured to me that one reason that visions in the Bible of God and his glory are so strange and confusing (Such as Daniel's, Isaiah's, and John's in the book of Relevations) is because of that, and mere words can do little. I mean, Jesus appearing to John in Revelations and having a sword for a tongue (amoung other things) certainly doesn't make sense to me, but it certainly hints that not everything will make complete sense to me.

Not that I'd believe what I do if I saw fundamental logical problems in my belief, but it actually makes some logical sense that pretty finite beings like us cannot scientifically understand infinite beings like God. The concept of infinity itself is confusing enough for mathimaticians.

Saying things like God loves, God is perfect, and God forgives is not quantizing him. That is describing some of his qualities (according to the definition, "a distinguishing attribute"). His qualities have never been quantized more then saying they are infinite, which is hardly quantizing them at all.

Finally, I am completely undecided over Creationism vs Evolutionism, but like KH I believe what you do in life is far more important then this creation business... Though I hold that Genisis' creation story is at the very least symbolically true, and that God created us.


Jean

08-28-2005, 01:06 AM

What I fail to understand is how anyone can take a book, a book originally with no syntax (most grammar was invented 500+ years after 0BC) litterally...

Thats like saying: "Gloria walked on, her hands a little steadier than normal." And, "Gloria walked on her hands, a little steadier than normal." Are the same. Both are valid interpretations of: "Gloria walked on her hands a little steadier than normal." But, they are different in meaning.


Anc, things do have meaning when we limit their defining power to whatever suits us, such as our world, or the Solar System.

Lets say God created our world. Now thats truth in our world. Its final. It can be final (unless you debate semantics) because it's limited to our world. Now God created our world, but he's just a super intelligent being that evolved on Mars. That's final, limited to our world's. Now the Solar System is just the left overs of the Alpha Proxima System, an experiement created by God I. (final, limited to the Solar System) God I evolved on the sun of the Alpha Centauri System, (final, limited our star systems).

You see my point now? You can go on like that forever. Throw in a few random 'blips into existance' areas, and a few 'worm hole opened tossing blah into blah' if you must, but still, you can't define the universe.

You're correct, there is no meaning in the universe. The problem lies within our nature to describe stuff, like the universe, with words. The universe isn't a thing, its not a place, its not a person, or a product of a person, it's not a noun, or a verb, or an adverb, or an adjective (or any of those other types of words).

A galaxy is a place, its a thing, it may be a person's mind, or the product of a person. A galaxy has meaning.

You see?


KnightHawk

08-28-2005, 12:10 PM

What I fail to understand is how anyone can take a book, a book originally with no syntax (most grammar was invented 500+ years after 0BC) litterally...

The Bible was first written in Hebrew, then translated to Latin, which in turn was translated into German, which was then translated into English by King James, which was dumbed down into the New International version, and then was ghettofied into Ebonics for the "It's the Bible Yo" version found in many inner city QuikiMarks.

Considering the inadaquecies of translation, how one word and turn of phrase can never have the exact shade of meaning from one language to the next, how can we believe in the Bible?

Well, I don't, but the answer is simple:

It's called faith dickhead.

Frankly, my friend, it takes more courage and inner strength to believe in a thing than it takes to cop out on the whole religion issues and be an agnostic *raises his hand*, and it sure as shootin takes more than to be a teenage angsty atheist wannabe like you. Shut your newage pie-hole and stop insulating those who've chosen to follow a faith when you don't have the inner-strength to believe in anything other than something you read in a science fiction novel written for a kid barely outta his diapers. Shit, I read this stupid ass theory you don't even half beleive in when I was nine--C. S. Lewis rocks.

By the by, that "grammar wasn't invented" thing is bullshit. ALL language has grammer. Without it, the entire system of spoken symbols to represent meaning (the very definition of language) falls apart.

Idiot.

A galaxy is a place, its a thing, it may be a person's mind, or the product of a person. A galaxy has meaning.

You see?

By the by, this is an opinion, and not even your own. Even if you do believe in it, then it's simply a faith that has no more (or less) meaning than Creationism or Marshmallowism.


*glances a Phyvo*

Okay, what you said was intelligent, and deserves a reasoned response that doesn't qualify as a counter, or really an arguement, but a statement of my opinion, because on issues like this, it's all about personal belief. Arguements are useless when someone has thought about their faith because their mind is made up, so I'm going to try to be respectful....but if I come off harsh, it's because little Mr. Science Fiction has annoyed the crap out of me, and not because I think you're wrong.

So consider this a place holder while I think about what you said and find the best way to express what I think on the subject.

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


silence

08-28-2005, 02:53 PM

Our own ghostdude and I were having a heated debate over this. Unfortunately he feels if you change your position due to something on the internet that you're stupid.

So the thing is creationism. Is it logical? Is it the same thing with a different outcome as science? Is it simple lack of logic and blind (normally meaning you haven't heard or understood the opposite side till after 15 or even later) faith?

The farther I get into science, the more I learn (a fudemental difference, religion is believing something because nothing has proved it wrong, whereas science is believing something because it has been proven, and not by faith or personal accounts, to be correct) the less value I put in it; I origanally thought perhaps a happy medium was the correct veiw, maybe god was responsible for the big 'bang'.

As I continue, I find no evidence to support this other then the fact, as humans, we cannot understand the univserse. We're mentally incapable of comprehending something without boundries, the closest we can ever come is a circle, which linearly continues forever. Which is a big score for the creationists because without this ignorance their myths would've been trashed long ago.

So anyways, there's my veiw in a nutshell. I'm not good at starting these things. :p
Let's take the thread back to basics.

Is belief in a religion (and by extension, creationism) illogical? No.There is no logical reason a deity cannot exist, but there are next-to no rational reasons why a person might believe in a deity.

It is true that science has offered an apparently watertight view of the universe. However, it is not a factual overview of the universe. Simply because a scientist shows you the maths and 'proves' that atoms exist does not mean to say that they do exist. Furthermore, just because science has offered alternative explanations for a large number of phenomena that were once believed to have metaphysical causes (the orbit of Earth around the Sun to explain the path of the Sun across the sky, for example) we should not assume that all phenomena will be explained in a scientific manner in this way.

An understanding of something is not required for it to be true, either. -2-2=-4 (being an a priori truth, this is necessarily the case), but have you actually thought about what the term '-2' actually means? It's an abstract concept, and actually impossible to understand beyond understanding it as -2. There is simply nothing that we can conceptualise as -2.

I am an atheist, but by no means do I think that it is impossible for a deity to exist. Simply extremely unlikely.


Gaidin

08-28-2005, 03:16 PM

An understanding of something is not required for it to be true, either. -2-2=-4 (being an a priori truth, this is necessarily the case), but have you actually thought about what the term '-2' actually means? It's an abstract concept, and actually impossible to understand beyond understanding it as -2. There is simply nothing that we can conceptualise as -2.

Actually.....-2 is just short hand for what we know as -(+2), or...to take away two. If this is a math application like physics, all the minus means is predetermined direction. If you want to go into something like accounting, it means nothing more than "its on this particular side of what we designate as the barrier between 'fucked up' and 'in good shape'"...the number is still positive though. There are no negative numbers.....its the concept of zero you have to worry about.


Phyvo

08-28-2005, 03:45 PM

Silence, I'm a little confused.

You can say, "I don't know whether there's a deity or not," "There isn't a deity," or "There is a deity," but how the heck can you say "It's likely" or "unlikely" that there's a deity? What are we doing, predicting the weather?

"Deity likely in the afternoon. Charitable accumulation, one to two dollars."

If you're an atheist, then you believe that there is no God, simple as that. It's not like science is putting God under investigation and predicting the outcomes of an experiment. Say what you mean. If you are not completely sure that God isn't possible, that classifies you as agnostic, not atheist.

---

As for the accuracy of the Bible, we know from Jewish practices that copies of the Torah were very painstakingly done, and that a single tiny mistake would mean throwing out the entire scroll. The Torah was the holy word of God, and not to be copied trivially. Therefore, we know that up until the Torah was translated it remained accurate. Moreover, we have several sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that we can use to check the accuracy of modern translation. Biblical translators are much more careful and conservative about this then you give them credit.

Say you translate a letter from English to French, but also want it in Spanish. You do not need to translate it from French to Spanish. You can also translate it from English (what the letter was originally in) to Spanish, thus avoiding the problem which you have correctly brought to notice. Biblical translators refer to the old Hebrew and Greek manuscripts all the time because of that.

And no, I do not read the translations which say anything remotely close to "Jesus is in da hood yo". I actually spurn one of my Bibles because it's too politically correct and gender neutral. I don't know anyone personally who uses a "politically correct" translation, and have never been to a church which did, so that argumentive point is shot.

Finally, Bibles, especially study Bibles, are careful about presenting possible alternate wordings of verses that the translation was not completely clear about. You know the old Jesus-prevents-people-from-stoning-the-prostitute story, where Jesus says "Let him who has no sin cast the first stone?" That is actually not found in all the ancient manuscripts and is pointed out as such in my Bible. The painstaking care taken to stay true to the old Greek and Hebrew is simply amazing, so, if anything, doubt that the Bible is not just a bunch of faerie stories. Do not doubt that it has been translated properly. If someone wishes me to, I'll find some sources online that detail the process that you can look at.


silence

08-28-2005, 04:46 PM

Actually.....-2 is just short hand for what we know as -(+2), or...to take away two. If this is a math application like physics, all the minus means is predetermined direction. If you want to go into something like accounting, it means nothing more than "its on this particular side of what we designate as the barrier between 'fucked up' and 'in good shape'"...the number is still positive though. There are no negative numbers.....its the concept of zero you have to worry about.OK, but if you try and conceptualise -(+2) sheep, you can't do it.


Gaidin

08-28-2005, 05:09 PM

There is no such thing as -2 sheep for one major reason. Counting sheep is done using the Natural number system. That consists of every integer greater than or equal to zero. There is no such thing as a negative number in any shape form or fashion and thus makes total perfect sense. Go take a set theory course.


Leuthesius

08-28-2005, 05:11 PM

*snickers*

Even I knew that >.> And I'm retarded <.<;

*apologies to the mods, I really have nothing else to add*

*leaves briskly*


silence

08-29-2005, 08:03 AM

There is no such thing as -2 sheep for one major reason. Counting sheep is done using the Natural number system. That consists of every integer greater than or equal to zero. There is no such thing as a negative number in any shape form or fashion and thus makes total perfect sense. Go take a set theory course.You can probably tell I didn't do maths for too long. I'll have to check up with my philosophy tutor when I get back to college (his PhD was in Philosophy of Maths.) I was unaware that sheep have to be counted using the natural numbers. I would have thought anything short of the full Complex number set would suffice.

Either way, it's somewhat irrelevant and even by debunking that point you haven't debunked the core of the argument, only argued the semantics. You don't have to understand something in order for it to be the case. I am not able to explain why I exist, but I do (I'm not talking about a biological 'mother and father' explanation, I'm talking about a blanket explanation.)


Ancalagon_The_Black

08-30-2005, 12:55 AM

Actually, the idea of all numbers in general is rather abstract...but that's another topic.

Jean, I think KnightHawk summed up my opinions on your theory, so I won't argue anymore. I've tried, but no more.

However, KH, I do disagree with you on something. You say it doesn't matter where we came from. You say it matters far more where we're going. I think it is very important to understand where we're going, but can you really fully grasp this if you don't know where it all began? Does the end of the story matter unless you read it from the beginning?

Does it make sense? Can you read the ending and then just make up any beginning that suites you?

You seem to want to believe that what we do in life matters. But it only matters if there is something more. And if what we do matters, and I mean really matters, than there is such thing as a "better way" to live. What people make of themselves and their lives can be compared meaningfully. If this is the case, then it is our goal to live as good (not hamburger good...but morally good) a life as possible. The only question is, what constitutes good?

I won't try to answer that right now, but if we must be good, then it must have been our goal from the beginning. These strange beings, who claim that what they do matters, must have mattered from the beginning.

And if what we do matters, then everything else around us matters too.


From beginning to end.


silence

08-30-2005, 08:28 AM

Silence, I'm a little confused.

You can say, "I don't know whether there's a deity or not," "There isn't a deity," or "There is a deity," but how the heck can you say "It's likely" or "unlikely" that there's a deity? What are we doing, predicting the weather?

"Deity likely in the afternoon. Charitable accumulation, one to two dollars."

If you're an atheist, then you believe that there is no God, simple as that. It's not like science is putting God under investigation and predicting the outcomes of an experiment. Say what you mean. If you are not completely sure that God isn't possible, that classifies you as agnostic, not atheist.
What I said is, "I think it is unlikely that there is a deity", not "it is unlikely there is a deity".

An agnostic is someone that believes that the truth value of whether there is a god is unknown or can never be known. I think it is possible to know, and do not believe in a God. That makes me an atheist.


Phyvo

08-30-2005, 09:43 AM

Ow. You're right.

Sorry about this short post, but I have nothing else I can add and I wanted to acknowledge that silence was correct on this point.


KnightHawk

09-01-2005, 03:25 PM

Actually, as a Christian I make it my objective not to "quantize" God, because "quantizing" God is not Biblical. Sure, there's that whole trinity business, but that not only obfuscates whether God is three or one, it also has not much to do with actually quantizing God's other characteristics. Even if there God was simply one, I don't believe that would be much of a quantizing problem (since what's important not to quantize his characteristics), so I'll move on.

I haven't seen a single place in the Bible which states that man is able to quantize or, more or less, comprehend God. In fact, there are so many places where it says to the contrary that I cannot list them all. It actually occured to me that one reason that visions in the Bible of God and his glory are so strange and confusing (Such as Daniel's, Isaiah's, and John's in the book of Relevations) is because of that, and mere words can do little. I mean, Jesus appearing to John in Revelations and having a sword for a tongue (amoung other things) certainly doesn't make sense to me, but it certainly hints that not everything will make complete sense to me.

Not that I'd believe what I do if I saw fundamental logical problems in my belief, but it actually makes some logical sense that pretty finite beings like us cannot scientifically understand infinite beings like God. The concept of infinity itself is confusing enough for mathimaticians.

Saying things like God loves, God is perfect, and God forgives is not quantizing him. That is describing some of his qualities (according to the definition, "a distinguishing attribute"). His qualities have never been quantized more then saying they are infinite, which is hardly quantizing them at all.


I disagree. There are two major purposes behind religion when you look at it from a viewpoint divorced entirely from the gushy, sparkly happy feelings one gets during worship.

The first is social control. Homosexuality was banned due to the mistreatment of young Jewish slave boys by Egyptian masters. What they did caused a great amount of harm to these boys, so the buttsex was out. Shellfish and Pork? Both caused disease, so God’s homeboys said fuck that noise. Common knowledge, common arguments, but considering the real thrust of this discussion, this entire paragraph is a digression, so there’s no point in writing an essay on it.

The second is, of course, to quantify the supernatural, to put it into a box, to make it comprehendible. For instance, the very idea of God is a box, a concept designed to quantify the great big beyond.

To clarify, the very word “God” carries certain connotations. First off, it qualifies the mystical as God, as opposed to the neutral cycles of life and death favored by the Celts, or impersonal but compassionate forces found in Buddhism or Hinduism. It makes the spiritual concrete rather than fluid, as in Shintoism, or pretty much all of the eastern religions. Second, it carries a weaker connotation of a male ruler, an all-knowing, all-seeing patriarch as opposed to matriarch. Now, granted, the idea that God has gender has weakened, but “god” is undeniably a male word.

Further more, you define “Him” as the Christian god, as opposed to the “Great Spirit” of the Native Americans (which I admittedly know just about dick about), Allah from Islam, Buddha from the sects of that religion who worship him as a sort of god, Jehovah of the Jews or the Jehovah Witnesses, or even the god of the Mormons. Some more liberated Christians are conflicted about these other incarnations of God in these interconnected religions, but for the most part, you’ve defined Him as the Christian God—some even go so far as to make a distinction between the Protestant God and the Catholic God, but, in my humble opinion, they’re fucking morons and can bite my ass.

The bottom line is, you can’t see my point because you’re taking too narrow a view—a view as a Christian who believes in his god and his laws. I’m an agnostic; I have no opinion. But, the very fact you’re part of an organized religion that creates laws and systems of belief is a quantification in itself, because, by doing so, you’re denying the other possibilities, such as our universe is ruled by impartial spiritual forces with no more rhythm or whim than the forces of nature that govern our physical world, or that Allah rules us, or, hell, that all that’s up there is Pikachu.

One. Big. Pikachu.

Okay, I stole that joke, but you see my point.

Just to reaffirm this point though, this isn’t an argument, because an argument is meant to change your opinion, and once something’s a belief, well, it’s pretty much stuck. This is just the view my faith has led me to—take it or leave it.


As for the accuracy of the Bible, we know from Jewish practices that copies of the Torah were very painstakingly done, and that a single tiny mistake would mean throwing out the entire scroll. The Torah was the holy word of God, and not to be copied trivially. Therefore, we know that up until the Torah was translated it remained accurate. Moreover, we have several sources such as the Dead Sea Scrolls that we can use to check the accuracy of modern translation. Biblical translators are much more careful and conservative about this then you give them credit.

Say you translate a letter from English to French, but also want it in Spanish. You do not need to translate it from French to Spanish. You can also translate it from English (what the letter was originally in) to Spanish, thus avoiding the problem which you have correctly brought to notice. Biblical translators refer to the old Hebrew and Greek manuscripts all the time because of that.

And no, I do not read the translations which say anything remotely close to "Jesus is in da hood yo". I actually spurn one of my Bibles because it's too politically correct and gender neutral. I don't know anyone personally who uses a "politically correct" translation, and have never been to a church which did, so that argumentive point is shot.

Finally, Bibles, especially study Bibles, are careful about presenting possible alternate wordings of verses that the translation was not completely clear about. You know the old Jesus-prevents-people-from-stoning-the-prostitute story, where Jesus says "Let him who has no sin cast the first stone?" That is actually not found in all the ancient manuscripts and is pointed out as such in my Bible. The painstaking care taken to stay true to the old Greek and Hebrew is simply amazing, so, if anything, doubt that the Bible is not just a bunch of faerie stories. Do not doubt that it has been translated properly. If someone wishes me to, I'll find some sources online that detail the process that you can look at.

Since I feel this comment was directed at me, I want to acknowledge it.

Here’s what you’re asking me to accept.

A) That over several thousand years, starting with the ancient texts of the Old Testament, all the way up to the two-thousand-five years young new testament, no single shade of meaning has been skewed, misinterpreted, or changed from the oringal form. All ancient scribes and priests has been dutiful, and despite the Bible starting out as oral traditions, every word has been faithfully remembered, despite having been passed down for hundreds of generations, and having been penned by hundreds of thousands of people. There has never been a mistake, the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves are perfect, and there shall never be a misinterpretation.

B) The Bible has never been purposely skewed or rewritten for the purpose of political maneuvering. The monarchs of Europe and the various rulers of the Holy Roman Empire never used the bible to establish a divine right of rulership, and have never messed with God’s word in hopes of furthering their ends. Furthermore, the new politically correct versions and the Ebonics versions are modern perversions whose like have never been seen before.

C) That many books of the new testament were not, in fact, written by Catholic scholars many years after the death of Christ, never knew him, and had only research to back it up on.

D) That your translation info is not as biased as the information being used by the young earth Christians or the hard core “monkeys are people, MAN” guys. That the guys who researched it didn’t have an interest in proving the Bible is the pure word of God, unpolluted by the hand and avarice of man.

Yeah, right. Considering skepticism is one of the defining features of my belief system, my disbelief shouldn’t be surprising. Expecting me to just accept your almost fairytale like set of “Facts” would be like expecting the Pope to publicly endorse anal with same sex partners.

Not that I’m saying the Bible is trash—that’s not mine, or anyone else’s, place. What I’m saying is that accepting the Bible is the unsullied word of god is an article of faith, and one central to your belief. You’re entitled to it, and I’ll not gainsay you.

But since I don’t share your faith (or totally disbelieve it), I’m going to look at it from a logical standpoint, and my logic says that, without the presence of God, the hand of man, even those with the best intentions, had to have fucked up the Bible at some point due to the sheer amount of time and chance for human error involved.

One other point. You said we wouldn’t have to translate it from French to Spanish—this is true. In modern times. We have these awesome things called printing presses. M point about the translations deals with the time period where literature wasn’t readily available, and everything had to be translated by hand. The original Hebrew texts had to be translated into Latin for the sake of the Roman days, because that’s what everyone spoke. The Latin texts were (and are) used by the Catholic Church, so when the Protestant Revolution rolled around, what were they still using? The Latin texts. Johannes Gutenberg, the inventor of the printing press, tested his machine out on the Bible—after having it translated from Latin into German, of course. King James later translated NOT the Latin version, but the German version into the King James Version, which is still in common use. Hell, the fact that it’s called a “version” in an of itself indicates there’s been translation differences, which, again, does not invalidate the Bible, it’s just part of the basis for my own, personal disbelief in it.




However, KH, I do disagree with you on something. You say it doesn't matter where we came from. You say it matters far more where we're going. I think it is very important to understand where we're going, but can you really fully grasp this if you don't know where it all began? Does the end of the story matter unless you read it from the beginning?

Does it make sense? Can you read the ending and then just make up any beginning that suites you?

You seem to want to believe that what we do in life matters. But it only matters if there is something more. And if what we do matters, and I mean really matters, than there is such thing as a "better way" to live. What people make of themselves and their lives can be compared meaningfully. If this is the case, then it is our goal to live as good (not hamburger good...but morally good) a life as possible. The only question is, what constitutes good?

I won't try to answer that right now, but if we must be good, then it must have been our goal from the beginning. These strange beings, who claim that what they do matters, must have mattered from the beginning.

And if what we do matters, then everything else around us matters too.


From beginning to end.

Okay, before I begin, two comments:

A) You’re preaching. I hate preaching. Okay, that’s not entirely true; I love preaching, but I hate being preached at. Doesn’t matter if the subject matter is religion, politics, or how my habit of procrastination is ultimately going to end in me being divorced, childless, and eating out of garbage cans down by the side of the Ohio river. You don’t have the answers to life, and I resent the self-righteous tone of your voice.

B) This is the exact discussion I’ve had fifty-three million times with my Christian bride-to-be, which was presented to me roughly three gazillion times before that by churchies who wanted to bring me back into the fold, back when I was sixteen and strayed from the flock.

Now, on with my response.

You’re suffering from the same problem Phyvo was when I was discussing with him how religion puts the spiritual into a tidy, little, easy-to-handle box. You’re taking too narrow a view, and seeing only how the concept of where we’re going applies through a Christian filter.

Belief, as far as I’m concerned, can be gauged as thus:

http://www.angelfire.com/my/zippo/graph.txt

On the extreme left in, we have Perfect Atheism, the belief that there is no soul, no supernatural, that all we are is walkin, talkin meat, and that love, kindness, and everything that keeps civilization going is a polite fiction designed primarily for social control. In the center, we have strong, Perfectly Organized Religions, such as Catholicism, or Sunni Islam, and other incredibly radical forms of strongly controlling religions that seek to control every aspect of your life. On the far right, we have Perfect Agnosticism, a belief that all religions (and atheism) are 100% true, while adhering to none of them. It’s the idea that the supernatural is completely unknowable, and though it may not exist, it probably does.

I don’t think too many people fall under the extremes, even when you’re talking about Perfectly Organized Religions. Granted, in many countries, people live UNDER the rule of those who claim to be ruling in the name of whatever god they serve, with the Burkas and the suicide bombings, but actually believe it? Few and far in-between. Most of the faithful I’ve met tend to pick and choose which of their religion’s views apply to their lives and run with it—hell, if you want an extreme example, look up white power. A lot of those jerkoffs really believe that God only likes the whites. Now tell me that’s not pickin and choosin what you want to believe outta the Bible.

Me, I’m not a perfect Agnostic. I think Atheism is a load of bullshit, and I reject most overly structured religions, such as Catholicism, Amish-ness, or any sort of religion that tries to turn itself into a Theocracy. Hell, the jackass Christians on TV praying for the death of activist judges and advocating the assassination of world leaders are, to me, some of the lower forms of scum this society has produced.

There is a higher power, I just think it’s fucking retarded to think we could ever define it as anything, especially not with such limiting words as “God”, “Allah”, or “Jehovah”, or even more fluid terms like Nirvana (despite it being a kickass band). I believe that what we do in life matters because we were, indeed, put here by someone or something that is, among other things, loving and kind. When I look around this world, I see unlimited bounty, a sheer amount of beauty that defies the atheists, and shows them to be the small-hearted fuckheads most of them seem to be. The real ugliness in this world has been done by man, and all too often done in the name of one god or another.

And even if I’m wrong Blackie, think about it. What if there is no higher power? What if all that’s out there is a big, gaping black hole? I mean, really think about it. Can you really grasp the idea of a void? Of that vast emptiness that isn’t even a blackness, or really an emptiness at all? Emptiness is a thing man, and what lies for us after death if there is no higher being isn’t even that. It’s a concept even harder to grasp than infinity, because it is the very definition of nothing.

It’s terrifying. It makes Cthulhu and the Great Old ones look like fucking pussies man, when you’re confronted with nonexistence.

If nothing exists beyond this world…then how can you say it doesn’t matter what we do in this life? If this is all we got, we HAVE to try and make this life into something wondrous, try to make this world so beautiful that it negates that nothingness, that it makes existence worth it.

It matters, because it’s all we have.

But I honestly don’t believe that. There is something. What that something is, and how is set this ball of dirt into motion is meaningless. Your problem, Blackie, with your talk of goals, and asking me about how the ending can matter if we don’t have a beginning, is that you want structure. While your kind says our minds can’t encompass the fullness of “God”, you don’t really believe it. The truth is, if we can’t comprehend it, honestly, then it’s too big for us to define and work with. There is no clear, set goals, and life isn’t a neatly structured novel with a clear beginning, middle, and end. It’s too damn complex for that.

What matters is can we make something of this life. Can we stop killing each other over limited resources, can we find a form of energy that doesn’t destroy our planet, can we keep the greedy and corrupt out of power? It matters because it’s the dirt of this world, and it’s where we live. It matters because we live in a global community, and the shit that happens half-way across the world effects our everyday lives, even if it’s hard to see. Even in self-serving terms, it’s important to be good to others because it benefits you.

Life is structureless. It’s anarchy. It’s cruel, and hard, and rough, but more than that, it’s filled with beauty, love, and light, and it’s all there for our taking if we can simply keep our heads out of our own bullshit and just seize it.

In short, it matters because it does—questions of the ultimate meaning are fucken moot.

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


Phyvo

09-01-2005, 07:30 PM

KH, I am terribly confused. I had a long post written out in reply to you, when I noticed that you stated that you did not want to define "it" as anything.

Then, in the same paragraph, you say that "it" is loving and kind.

I cannot reply to you until you start making sense. My only guess is that you think "loving" and "kind" are somehow less restrictive than "God" and "Nirvana". The conventional (not my) "God" maybe, but not "Nirvana". Also, since that it a very subjunctive matter, I cannot see how you'd justify it. Therefore, I am confused.

I'd also like to point out that, if God existed as I believe him to, people running around screaming "GOD HATES GAYS!!! YOU ALL MUST DIE AND BURN IN HELL!" are not God's fault. That comes from man. If we were to reject ideas because people perverted them then you would not be able to hold your position either, or even be a Democrat, Republican, or an Independant. Therefore, try to not hold prejudice against ideas that do not promote such bigotry but share the same name, though I know it's hard.


Ancalagon_The_Black

09-01-2005, 11:56 PM

Actually, KnightHawk, that was one of the more heart-felt posts I've ever made here :(

I disagree. There are two major purposes behind religion when you look at it from a viewpoint divorced entirely from the gushy, sparkly happy feelings one gets during worship.

The first is social control. Homosexuality was banned due to the mistreatment of young Jewish slave boys by Egyptian masters. What they did caused a great amount of harm to these boys, so the buttsex was out. Shellfish and Pork? Both caused disease, so God’s homeboys said fuck that noise. Common knowledge, common arguments, but considering the real thrust of this discussion, this entire paragraph is a digression, so there’s no point in writing an essay on it.

The reason the Jews had such strict laws was only partially due to what you said. The real reason was simple. They had to separate themselves from everyone else. During the early times of the Jewish faith, the various peoples around them were doing some seriously messed up shit. It became necessary, as the "chosen people," to impose such strictures in order to keep a definitive line between the Hebrews and everyone else. And if you've read the Old Testement, you'll see how hard it was for them. They acted like little children, seeing what they could and couldn't get away with!

The second is, of course, to quantify the supernatural, to put it into a box, to make it comprehendible. For instance, the very idea of God is a box, a concept designed to quantify the great big beyond.

To clarify, the very word “God” carries certain connotations. First off, it qualifies the mystical as God, as opposed to the neutral cycles of life and death favored by the Celts, or impersonal but compassionate forces found in Buddhism or Hinduism. It makes the spiritual concrete rather than fluid, as in Shintoism, or pretty much all of the eastern religions. Second, it carries a weaker connotation of a male ruler, an all-knowing, all-seeing patriarch as opposed to matriarch. Now, granted, the idea that God has gender has weakened, but “god” is undeniably a male word.

"God" is a human concept. It is a vague name for the divine. Everyone used (and uses) it. When God speaks to Moses, he says "I will become your God," which indicates that the actually person of Deity, YHWH, was becoming something else, something new, to man. He was becoming the object of their worship.

All the religions you mentioned have gods of some kind. Be they representations of impersonal forces or otherwise. Actually, If you read through the OT and the ancient teachings of the Jews, you'll see something quite remarkable: a highly advanced, spiritually deep "God" that was present in the faith of a culture with no philosophical background whatsoever. The Romans and Greeks laughed at them because the Jews seemed primitive, but when the actual beliefs were spread around fully through Christianity, they were amazed! They could not for the life of them understand how such an advanced conception of God, not too far away from that of the greatest Greek and Roman philosophers, had been developed by a bunch of desert nomads. It blew their minds.

Further more, you define “Him” as the Christian god, as opposed to the “Great Spirit” of the Native Americans (which I admittedly know just about dick about), Allah from Islam, Buddha from the sects of that religion who worship him as a sort of god, Jehovah of the Jews or the Jehovah Witnesses, or even the god of the Mormons.

There is a reason why Christianity refers to God as a "him." It is somewhat complicated and has to do with God's position reletive to the univers and man. I don't feel like going into it right now but maybe a bit later on down the line. Also, the "Allah" of Islam and Jehovah (derivitive of "Yehweh" or YHWH) of the Jews is the same God, to christians, as that of christianity. Heck, "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic! Christianity recognizes them as the same God.

Some more liberated Christians are conflicted about these other incarnations of God in these interconnected religions, but for the most part, you’ve defined Him as the Christian God—some even go so far as to make a distinction between the Protestant God and the Catholic God, but, in my humble opinion, they’re fucking morons and can bite my ass.

I'm Catholic. The official teaching of the Church is that all religions have some kind of truth in them. Heck, just the recognition of some kind of greater power counts. However, these other beliefs are seen as incomplete, or lacking, in varrying degrees.

Here’s what you’re asking me to accept.

A) That over several thousand years, starting with the ancient texts of the Old Testament, all the way up to the two-thousand-five years young new testament, no single shade of meaning has been skewed, misinterpreted, or changed from the oringal form. All ancient scribes and priests has been dutiful, and despite the Bible starting out as oral traditions, every word has been faithfully remembered, despite having been passed down for hundreds of generations, and having been penned by hundreds of thousands of people. There has never been a mistake, the Dead Sea Scrolls themselves are perfect, and there shall never be a misinterpretation.

The Bible, specifically the OT, was written collectively. Sometimes you'll hear people say Moses wrote the penteteuch (first 5 books of the Bible). That is probably not true, but we can't be certain.

We do know, however, that over the centuries many people did write down and copy the various books of the Bible. However, you're idea of how the Bible is the word of God seems to be a bit off. Its not like its what God said, word for word, to the various Hebrew scribes, unaltered over the centuries. Its not like the Koran. Rather, it is the written work of man inspired by God, using human art forms and styles to convey its message. The collective work over the centuries is the word of God, but it is also the word of man. God uses human tools to achieve his ends in the world. Its how he functions.

B) The Bible has never been purposely skewed or rewritten for the purpose of political maneuvering. The monarchs of Europe and the various rulers of the Holy Roman Empire never used the bible to establish a divine right of rulership, and have never messed with God’s word in hopes of furthering their ends. Furthermore, the new politically correct versions and the Ebonics versions are modern perversions whose like have never been seen before.

Your point about European monarchs is a little silly, in my opinion. The divine right of rulership is not something that really has to do with the Bible. However, we do have Biblical sources predating such Empires that are the same as those used in the middle ages. We can verrify the modern texts and those of previous ages with those of the early Church.

C) That many books of the new testament were not, in fact, written by Catholic scholars many years after the death of Christ, never knew him, and had only research to back it up on.

They were written by Catholic scholars. These later scholars did not know Christ personally. They all relied on research to back them up. But modern studies show that all the elements of the New Testent were established by as early as A.D. 100. Maybe even earlier. And as I said before, we can study and verrify these things using the texts from those times. Now could all of these have been fabricated in the first place? Yes. they could have. But there are logical and religious reasons to think otherwise. You can say anything written from a previous time is made up or has been corrupted, but there comes a point where it is just nonsensical to do so.

D) That your translation info is not as biased as the information being used by the young earth Christians or the hard core “monkeys are people, MAN” guys. That the guys who researched it didn’t have an interest in proving the Bible is the pure word of God, unpolluted by the hand and avarice of man.

Um...I'm not sure what you're saying. Everything is "biased" in some way. However, again, when it comes to language, there are ways to objectively state what the translation should be on something. The people who originally translated the Bible from Greek (it was originally written mostly in Greek and Aramaic) into Latin most likely believed it was the pure word of God. It seems to me there is little dispute over translations, per se, but rather interpretation. You can say that they rewrote scripture from Genesis: 1, as well as altered all the previously kept Jewish texts to match their own, but is that a logical assumption to make?

And also, on a side note, I believe it was Martin Luther who originally translated the Bible into German, and the advent of the printing press was probably why the Protestant Reformation was so successful. When you're working on the assumption that truth is derived from Scripture alone, it helps to have thousands of copies of scripture floating around.

But I'm getting off track here.

Okay. Now on to your preaching bit :p Or should I say counter preaching?

There is a higher power, I just think it’s fucking retarded to think we could ever define it as anything, especially not with such limiting words as “God”, “Allah”, or “Jehovah”, or even more fluid terms like Nirvana (despite it being a kickass band). I believe that what we do in life matters because we were, indeed, put here by someone or something that is, among other things, loving and kind. When I look around this world, I see unlimited bounty, a sheer amount of beauty that defies the atheists, and shows them to be the small-hearted fuckheads most of them seem to be. The real ugliness in this world has been done by man, and all too often done in the name of one god or another.

As phyvo said...I think you kinda just began to define God here.

But you brought up a point that is essential to understanding God. You just recognized beauty in the world.

Now tell me, what kind of a God would design a world so beautiful? So well ordered and structured? You say the world is chaotic. That it is anarchy. I heartily disagree. It is only the works of man that make it this way. If you look at nature, you see order. Maybe it is wild, but it all fits together so perfectly. It is a wild order that is beautiful and, and this is very important, intelligible. What kind of God would make this?

That is where it starts when trying to understad the mysteries of God. Look at the world, his creation. You said so yourself, that we are the work of a loving power. That we have a purpose. Now why would God make the universe, if he himself was perfect in all ways? What could the creation of man possibly add to him? Nothing.

But than why?

It all has to do with what kind of a being God is.

And even if I’m wrong Blackie, think about it. What if there is no higher power? What if all that’s out there is a big, gaping black hole? I mean, really think about it. Can you really grasp the idea of a void? Of that vast emptiness that isn’t even a blackness, or really an emptiness at all? Emptiness is a thing man, and what lies for us after death if there is no higher being isn’t even that. It’s a concept even harder to grasp than infinity, because it is the very definition of nothing.

Absolute Nothing is a difficult concept indeed. But it is a concept. Which begs the question, why not nothing? If it can be conceived of, there must be a reason why it is not. Why is there something rather than nothing?
There must be a reason, and it all has to do with the nature of God.

If nothing exists beyond this world…then how can you say it doesn’t matter what we do in this life? If this is all we got, we HAVE to try and make this life into something wondrous, try to make this world so beautiful that it negates that nothingness, that it makes existence worth it.

I can say it because if there is nothing beyond this life, only utter void, than our actions don't carry with us. Nothing does. Sure, the people that know that guy I bumped off might not be happy, but he don't care, and neither will I when I'm gone! And when they're dead all that will greet them is oblivion.

Our actions will matter, in as much as they will effect people, but what our actions are doesn't matter. So what if you make someone happy? It ends when they're dead. If I kill people, all I'm doing is ending them, and this supposed "bad thing" will have no effect on me whatsoever (other than, maybe, it being against the law an all). It will not deprive them of anything they will (or can) miss. Everything and everyone will just be headed for complete destruction! Nothingness! Meaninglessness!

Socrates was wrong. Complete and utter death is not like a big pleasant sleep. It cannot be enjoyed at all. Our actions will die with us. We will not exist.

Trying to understand God, KH, is what its all about. We will not and cannot ever fully "get" him. He is infinitely above us. He is infinitely Transcendant. But he is also an immenant God.

If he is perfectly loving, perfectly good, we can only benefit from trying to understand him! Even if we cannot fully, because if he made us to love others and be good, and he is infinite love and infinite goodness, than by trying understand God, by trying to imitate him, then we achieve our goal all the better.

The vague God you describe is just too vague. Believing in it is just too easy. This is a complicated world, and thus God must be complicated. I can understand you're hesitance to try and qualify and quantify God, but even if he is infinitely beyond us, why not at least try?

I hope this doesn't sound too preachy. I'm not trying to preach. Hopefully, anyway, it doesn't sound that way.


KnightHawk

09-03-2005, 11:32 AM

*grins*

I think maybe I did that thing again where I thought I was being kinda funny, but because my humor is harsh, and my way of expressing myself is abrasive, I came off a bit rougher at you than I intended Blackie. I didn’t care for your self-righteous tone (which your new post lacks entirely—it’s humble, pious, and respectable), but I was being a little humorous about the whole preachin thing. Like I said when I wrote it, I love TO preach, but hate being preached at—I thought showing my own hypocrisy would soften what I said about the righteousness.

>_>

<_<

-_-

WHAT?!

It amused me!

Anyway, I’m going to respond to your post, but, before I do, I want to reillerate what I’ve been trying to say all along. I’m an agnostic—I’m nowhere near Perfect Agnosticism, which accepts all and nothing at the same moment and just sorta copes out on the whole religion thing. I have a set of strong beliefs that draws heavily on the Jeudeo-Christian beliefs, as well as some of the more prominent of the Eastern Religions, but, mostly, on my own innate hatred of hierarchies, power, and the idea that someone else is going to tell me what to do with my life, be that person a ruler or a God. Even if the ruler or god is ultimately benevolent and only looking out for my well-being, I’m of the opinion that they can go fuck themselves—it’s my life.

My belief is about what’s here, in front of my own two eyes, and what my mind tells me is true. I’m a flawed person—hell, if I stretch my back in the wrong way, I get a major acid flashback if that gives you any hint. I don’t know everything, and I firmly believe, neither does any one set of beliefs, including my own. I dislike Catholicism because, in my mind, it’s overly structured, and its hierarchy is based on the size of the priest’s hat. I firmly, and completely believe that the more structured a religion is, the less chance it has of being true.

But that doesn’t mean I disbelieve in the tenants of the Catholic Church. By my belief system, every religion that’s heartfelt has the chance of holding some sort, if not a hearty chunk, of the truth. But because I can’t prove even the tiniest portion of a belief system as wrong or right, I present all systems of belief and all ideas of faith with skepticism, and, quite frankly, my own blend of stupid, and rather dicky, sarcasm.

At the same time, however, I do believe in a higher power, and I believe this power more than likely lacks a personality or defining features when it comes to behavior. God, no matter which of the Westernized Religions you’re looking at (Catholicism, Christianity, Islam, Mormonism, Jewishness, ect.), has a strict set of behavior He wants you to follow. All too often, these set of rules seem to flow along the lines of cultural prejudices. It could be argued that these prejudices developed along the lines god laid out (homosexuality is a no, no premarital sex, ect.), but it makes more sense to me that man said God said it in the name of societal stability.

In either event, it’s my contention that whatever it is that governs our universe doesn’t care what you do with your life as long as you try to do more good than the harm you cause; it, whatever it is, could give a damn if you buttfuck, or do the horizontal mambo with members of the same sex, as long as you’re a good person.

Further more, the both of you think I’m describing god when Buddhists, who do not believe in God in any way shape or form, would describe the world in a similar manner. To them, life is suffering and chaos, but there is beauty.

I just think the beauty of this world outweighs what ugliness we, as a people, have brought to it. When you see this through your Catholic filters, you think god, when I say, instead, that we don’t know. All my contention is that whatever that something is, it must be loving and kind to have granted us such a world.

Which is MY way of boxing the supernatural and making it comprehendible to me.

One last thing before I delve into your post.

It’s been my opinion for a long time that the greatest strength of Catholicism is also the very thing about it that pisses me off: it’s high level of organization. While many Protestant Preachers I’ve encountered (especially the Southern Baptists I’ve been hanging out with as of late) seem almost completely unable to defend their position without foaming at the mouth or handing you a “God works in mysterious ways”, or straight out threatening you with hell, Catholics seem to have made a friggin science out of theological debate. I’ve known more than a few Catholics parishioners who could defend their religion better than the actual preachers at many of the Protestant Churches I’ve been too, and could not be worse than the preacher I grew up listening to. And why not? The priests have been writing down all the arguments against their faith for nearly two millennia, and have formed incredibly convincing counter-arguments based in their faith. Frankly, just coming from a cynical standpoint, it’s really smart. Coming from a faithful one, it has to be comforting to have the answers to your “WTF’S?!?!” right at hand instead of muddling through it on your own like the Protestants.

You’re one of these scary assed Catholics Blackie, who know the arguments, and believe in them with all your heart, and I’m fucking glad I ain’t no atheist fuckhead who wants to disprove your religion, because I have a feeling you’d gut me like a carp. Thing is, even though I don’t like your religion, I still think it has a certain degree of truth in it.

All I’m attempting to do is present you with the central tenant of my eclectic, cynical, and rather eccentric faith: skepticism. While I believe you’re entitled to your faith, and respect the strength it takes to believe, I, personally, will never believe it, because I’m skeptical of anything I can’t see, hear, touch, feel, or taste, anything I can’t personally find to be true, and while the faithful will say they can feel the power of their deity, I never have, even when I was a Christian for the first sixteen years of my life. I believe you feel it, and I accept it could be god, but, at the same time, I’m skeptical of it, and am willing to believe it’s something more earthly.

With that, I’ll leave you with this:

"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be skeptical.... Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher....' -Buddha



The reason the Jews had such strict laws was only partially due to what you said. The real reason was simple. They had to separate themselves from everyone else. During the early times of the Jewish faith, the various peoples around them were doing some seriously messed up shit. It became necessary, as the "chosen people," to impose such strictures in order to keep a definitive line between the Hebrews and everyone else. And if you've read the Old Testement, you'll see how hard it was for them. They acted like little children, seeing what they could and couldn't get away with!

*nods*

Just as true as what I said, and not something I thought of. I’m filing this tidbit away for future use.

"God" is a human concept. It is a vague name for the divine. Everyone used (and uses) it. When God speaks to Moses, he says "I will become your God," which indicates that the actually person of Deity, YHWH, was becoming something else, something new, to man. He was becoming the object of their worship.

All the religions you mentioned have gods of some kind. Be they representations of impersonal forces or otherwise. Actually, If you read through the OT and the ancient teachings of the Jews, you'll see something quite remarkable: a highly advanced, spiritually deep "God" that was present in the faith of a culture with no philosophical background whatsoever. The Romans and Greeks laughed at them because the Jews seemed primitive, but when the actual beliefs were spread around fully through Christianity, they were amazed! They could not for the life of them understand how such an advanced conception of God, not too far away from that of the greatest Greek and Roman philosophers, had been developed by a bunch of desert nomads. It blew their minds.

There is a reason why Christianity refers to God as a "him." It is somewhat complicated and has to do with God's position reletive to the univers and man. I don't feel like going into it right now but maybe a bit later on down the line.

A lot of that I’m not entirely sure what it has to do with what I said about the very concept of god being a box to stuff the supernatural into, but a lot of it simply agrees with that concept. Whether it’s a vague concept, a complex philosophical system like the jews had, or as concrete as the Big Guy in the Sky yellin in your face like he was supposed to have done with Moses, it’s still a definition, still a belief, and frankly, proves my point.

But, that does not invalidate your God, if he happens to be true. It’s just an observation about religion in general, one that applies to all religions that get into the whole “deity” thing.

Also, the "Allah" of Islam and Jehovah (derivitive of "Yehweh" or YHWH) of the Jews is the same God, to christians, as that of christianity. Heck, "Allah" simply means "God" in Arabic! Christianity recognizes them as the same God.

I'm Catholic. The official teaching of the Church is that all religions have some kind of truth in them. Heck, just the recognition of some kind of greater power counts. However, these other beliefs are seen as incomplete, or lacking, in varrying degrees.


Sorry ATB, but I’m calling bullshit. On part of that anyway. I’ll take your word for it on the Catholic belief, but you seem to be under the misinterpretation that all Protestants believe the same thing when really there’s roughly 477 warring camps that fall under that header, all with their own slant on what God has to say.

Take the church I grew up in, the Nazarene denomination. I was taught that dancing was immoral, that all forms of gambling, especially bingo (grrrrr—Catholics!), was wrong, and that, speaking of Catholics, ya’all was idolaters who worshiped the holy whore (a phrase used by my Sunday School teacher) who where all going to hell. By the by, they also had issues with the Baptists with whom my fiancé likes to hang, and Lutherans, Amish, Mennonites, HUGE issues with the Amish, and, well….you get the idea.

You don’t even want to know what I was taught about Islam or the Mormons.

The Southern Baptist Church I’ve attended a few times recently is almost as narrow minded, just a little more…scary. Yeah. Scary’s the word. Did you know I’m going to hell because I got tattoos and piercings? Um…never mind that for now.

Historically speaking, all the religions that follow the Jeudeo-Christian value system evolved from one another, and honestly seem to be just reworkings of the Jewish faith to fit the culture. Hell, to me, it seems Islam, Jewishness, Christianity, Mormonism, Catholism, Amishness, and what the hell ever else, seem to have more shit in common than stupid little differences that don’t matter. But, apparently I’m missing something because Shia and Sunni Muslims have been killing each other for decades, just like Catholics and Christians have been offin each other in other parts of the world in other times.


The Bible, specifically the OT, was written collectively. Sometimes you'll hear people say Moses wrote the penteteuch (first 5 books of the Bible). That is probably not true, but we can't be certain.

We do know, however, that over the centuries many people did write down and copy the various books of the Bible. However, you're idea of how the Bible is the word of God seems to be a bit off. Its not like its what God said, word for word, to the various Hebrew scribes, unaltered over the centuries. Its not like the Koran. Rather, it is the written work of man inspired by God, using human art forms and styles to convey its message. The collective work over the centuries is the word of God, but it is also the word of man. God uses human tools to achieve his ends in the world. Its how he functions.

I’ll trust you on the OT part, but as for the second, I think this may be a denominational difference. Many Protestants, like the crazy assed Southern Batists I’ve been around, as well as the church I was raised in, feels the Bible is straight from God’s mouth to the page. It’s his complete, and unsullied will. What you’re doing here is presenting your belief as fact, which I suppose is cool since we’re talking about belief here my man, but not every Christian thinks the same way. Hell, I think that was the entire point of that Protestant Revolution thing.

Regardless of weather it was inspired by god or written by him, I still don’t buy into it.

They were written by Catholic scholars. These later scholars did not know Christ personally. They all relied on research to back them up. But modern studies show that all the elements of the New Testent were established by as early as A.D. 100. Maybe even earlier. And as I said before, we can study and verrify these things using the texts from those times. Now could all of these have been fabricated in the first place? Yes. they could have. But there are logical and religious reasons to think otherwise. You can say anything written from a previous time is made up or has been corrupted, but there comes a point where it is just nonsensical to do so.

You mistook my point. A, when I said they weren’t, I was listing what I was supposed to accept, and that was the Bible was written by the apostles and not by scholars (as many Protestant Churches teach). B, I was not saying that since the Bible wasn’t written by the apostles it must be made up, but my point was that they wrote it on a he says/she says basis.

Dude man, the further away from an event you are, the less empirical knowledge you really have of it. History, even now, in the information age, is an incomplete and holey subject based mostly on recollections, what was written at the time, much of which was politically motivated, and what we “think” happened. Major events, like a battle or the death of a highly public figure is easy to see and record, but, for Christ’s sake, we don’t even know who killed JFK.

You feel it’s nonsensical to think that parts of the Bible written a hundred years later should be cast under the shadow of skepticism? Dude man, that is blind faith, and that works for you because it’s what you believe, but don’t label something logical nonsensical just because it suits you. Say what you really mean: you believe in the Bible, so you choose to believe their sources were accurate, even though a hundred years is a long, long time, especially in an era were people died shockingly young.

Um...I'm not sure what you're saying. Everything is "biased" in some way. However, again, when it comes to language, there are ways to objectively state what the translation should be on something. The people who originally translated the Bible from Greek (it was originally written mostly in Greek and Aramaic) into Latin most likely believed it was the pure word of God. It seems to me there is little dispute over translations, per se, but rather interpretation. You can say that they rewrote scripture from Genesis: 1, as well as altered all the previously kept Jewish texts to match their own, but is that a logical assumption to make?

That’s because you’re looking at the wrong thing—honest mistake, I kinda took a rough right turn. The biased info I was referring to was Phyvo’s claim he could show me websites that “prove” the Bible is 100%. What I was saying here was that his people trying to prove the Bible hasn’t changed all that much from its original version have a stated interest in proving the Bible hasn’t changed so much from the original version, and therefore, I’m inclined to disbelieve anything they have to say—or at least look at it slantwise.


And also, on a side note, I believe it was Martin Luther who originally translated the Bible into German, and the advent of the printing press was probably why the Protestant Reformation was so successful. When you're working on the assumption that truth is derived from Scripture alone, it helps to have thousands of copies of scripture floating around.

Actually, you’re right. I got my German guys mixed up.

As phyvo said...I think you kinda just began to define God here.

But you brought up a point that is essential to understanding God. You just recognized beauty in the world.

Now tell me, what kind of a God would design a world so beautiful? So well ordered and structured? You say the world is chaotic. That it is anarchy. I heartily disagree. It is only the works of man that make it this way. If you look at nature, you see order. Maybe it is wild, but it all fits together so perfectly. It is a wild order that is beautiful and, and this is very important, intelligible. What kind of God would make this?

That is where it starts when trying to understad the mysteries of God. Look at the world, his creation. You said so yourself, that we are the work of a loving power. That we have a purpose. Now why would God make the universe, if he himself was perfect in all ways? What could the creation of man possibly add to him? Nothing.

But than why?

It all has to do with what kind of a being God is

We can agree to disagree. I refuse to debate Catholic dogma my friend—it’s central to your belief system, and I’m not trying to disprove it. We both see similar things in this world, and we’ve come up with different conclusions. Hell, that’s the reason there’s different religions to begin with.



Absolute Nothing is a difficult concept indeed. But it is a concept. Which begs the question, why not nothing? If it can be conceived of, there must be a reason why it is not. Why is there something rather than nothing?

There must be a reason, and it all has to do with the nature of God.

Your answer to the question, is, again, dogma, so I’m not going to address it, except, to say, again we’ve come up with different conclusions based on the same information.

I reject the concept of nothingness because, because, frankly, the idea that the world just exists seems illogical to me. The leap of logic I refuse to make though, is the one you’ve been taught to bull right through—that the reason for something must be god.

Problem is, Blackie, x doesn’t necessarily equal y. You believe it to, so you present it as fact, but to me, y is undefined. We don’t know for sure, end of story. That you think so is an article of faith and doesn’t constitute truth.

I can say it because if there is nothing beyond this life, only utter void, than our actions don't carry with us. Nothing does. Sure, the people that know that guy I bumped off might not be happy, but he don't care, and neither will I when I'm gone! And when they're dead all that will greet them is oblivion.

Our actions will matter, in as much as they will effect people, but what our actions are doesn't matter. So what if you make someone happy? It ends when they're dead. If I kill people, all I'm doing is ending them, and this supposed "bad thing" will have no effect on me whatsoever (other than, maybe, it being against the law an all). It will not deprive them of anything they will (or can) miss. Everything and everyone will just be headed for complete destruction! Nothingness! Meaninglessness!

Buddha tends to disagree with you.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.”

What he’s trying to say, in less grandiose terms than I used, is that it doesn’t matter if there is an afterlife, because if I keep my mind from the traits he defines as hurtful to the self (hatred, greed, desire, ect.) then I’ll live a happy life in the here and now—and if there is no hereafter, then it doesn’t matter. I won’t exist, so at least I was happy for the time I did exist.

Not that another religion agreeing with me makes me right—I just wanted to point out it isn’t just own my stupid teenage bullshit.

But, as I said, I believe in a higher power and a hereafter, but our actions do matter, even in the absence of a higher power simply because by living a good life, you’re far more likely to have led a happy life. This matters, not in a global sense, but to each and every person—who doesn’t want a happy life?

Our failure to think along the same paths seems to be, largely, the kind of view we take. You look at it from a universal view that includes God, one that encompasses everything, and I tend to look at it from an earthly view, what effects me, in a concrete, obvious way, day-to-day. Neither is superior to the other, just different.

Socrates was wrong. Complete and utter death is not like a big pleasant sleep. It cannot be enjoyed at all. Our actions will die with us. We will not exist.

Duh. Hence my whole rant about the whole “nothing is a big scary concept”.

Trying to understand God, KH, is what its all about. We will not and cannot ever fully "get" him. He is infinitely above us. He is infinitely Transcendant. But he is also an immenant God.

If he is perfectly loving, perfectly good, we can only benefit from trying to understand him! Even if we cannot fully, because if he made us to love others and be good, and he is infinite love and infinite goodness, than by trying understand God, by trying to imitate him, then we achieve our goal all the better.

Okay, I’m sorry, but I’m gonna have to be a complete dick here. This is pure, grade A Christian preaching, and a concept I rejected when I left Christianity. That you believe it is respectable, but since I’m not a Christian, this is so much meaningless babble to me.

The vague God you describe is just too vague. Believing in it is just too easy. This is a complicated world, and thus God must be complicated. I can understand you're hesitance to try and qualify and quantify God, but even if he is infinitely beyond us, why not at least try?

And I could (and have) say that your God is too restricting, and if he’s as uptight as the Catholics make him out to be, kind of a prick in the deal. But, frankly, I’m being a dick, so I’m going to back off on this point.

The bottom line is, I’m not describing God, I’m describing what nearly every society on the face of this planet has described in one way or another: the idea that there is something more, and that this power is benevolent. End of story….but I guess it makes me a pretty bad agnostic.

http://www.angelfire.com/my/zippo/graph2.txt

Yeah…

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


Ancalagon_The_Black

09-03-2005, 05:56 PM

LOL. That last part actually made me laugh. Though I don't think you could be described as an agnostic at all, really...

Anyways, I'm going to start with a question: If God is a reality, as you suspect, why not try to understand him, "make a science of him," as best you can? I have a fealing you'd say "Go ahead but don't ask me to believe in the same God, because your God is too restricting." Or something like that.

First off, I'm going to jump ahead to something you said later...

Even if the ruler or god is ultimately benevolent and only looking out for my well-being, I’m of the opinion that they can go fuck themselves—it’s my life.

If that's really what you think, than man, are you an IDIOT! Not to be offensive or anything, but if God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, knows everything about you and knows EXACTLY what can make you truly happy, than WHY NOT LISTEN TO THIS GOD?? It doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to go against all reason and can only be defined as inane individualism.

Don't get me wrong. From your posts I can see you're smart, articulate, and have thought about these things to some extent. Its just I cannot understand for the life of me this mentality! Its your life, so what? If some God-entity knows everything and made you, than wouldn't he (it, whatever) have some idea what's good for you?

Originally posted by Buddha
"It is proper for you, Kalamas, to doubt, to be skeptical.... Do not go upon what has been acquired by repeated hearing; nor upon tradition; nor upon rumor; nor upon what is in a scripture; nor upon surmise; nor upon an axiom; nor upon specious reasoning; nor upon a bias towards a notion that has been pondered over; nor upon another's seeming ability; nor upon the consideration, 'The monk is our teacher....'

Ugh...there is something about Buddhism that I find incredibly annoying. This saying I sort of agree with, on a level, blind faith is not good. You should think things through.

But I can see here that this is closely related to the other saying of the Buddha that says "Be ye lamps unto yourselves" or something like that, which I think is stupid. It tells you that you are your own path to happiness (enlightenment) and that nobody can tell you how to achieve this. All empowerment, happiness, is ultimately derived from the self.

But Buddha himself said this to someone else! He was offering the way to enlightenment! It seems completely self-contradicing, imho. Maybe that's why Buddhism has become so different from what it was originally intended to be.

I can see traces of this view in what you're saying, too.

But, as I said, I believe in a higher power and a hereafter, but our actions do matter, even in the absence of a higher power simply because by living a good life, you’re far more likely to have led a happy life. This matters, not in a global sense, but to each and every person—who doesn’t want a happy life?

The problem is, according to your belief system, there is no clear definition of what happiness really is, or how one should achieve this hapiness. If you say living a good life is just doing what makes you happy, than my friend, a lot of people who you (and me also) would probably describe as depraved are actually living a good life. Because they are, or at least think they are, happy.

If it only matters to the individual what "true happiness" is, than what you get is a very confused society. Similar to the one we have now (I'm not going to start my rant on materialism, subjectivism, etc., but suffice it to say these are the foul offspring of the mentality you described).

If God doesn't care whether or not you buttfuck, what does he care about? What is it you would describe as a "good person?"

Because the way I see it, if you have no set rules whatsoever, and everything depends on the individual, than, you get what you had in the Old Testement. You get Carthage throwing its children into burning, yawning chasms to sate their gods' hunger.

Not to say that buttfucking is equivalent to this, only that once the barrier is crossed, there's no stop signs on the way to rock bottom.

In short, just telling someone all they have to do is live a good life isn't enough without any guidance, external guidance, whatsoever.

We can agree to disagree. I refuse to debate Catholic dogma my friend—it’s central to your belief system, and I’m not trying to disprove it. We both see similar things in this world, and we’ve come up with different conclusions. Hell, that’s the reason there’s different religions to begin with.

I'm going to go to try and explain to you why, though it is Catholic dogma (in a sense), it is also founded on logic.

If God is infinite in every way,perfect, eternal, self-existent and does not depend on anything outside of himself for his own being, why would he make the universe? It obviously could not add anything to himself, because that would undermine his perfection and infinitude. It was made not out of necessity, because that would also undermine God's own necessary being and perfection.

God is loving, as you have stated, but he is infinitely loving, by definition. Therefor, he could have only made the universe and us out of love for us. But if God is perfect, and made us to "be good," would not the only real way to attain happiness and be good is to try and be like God, who is perfect? To "live by his rules" which were modeled on our own hapiness in the first place? The only question now being how can we best imitate God.

I see that as logical deduction, KH. The rules which you describe are not really rules at all, when you think about it. God, because he is all-knowing and all-loving, would have to know what could make us truly happy: and that could only be God himself, because he is perfect in every way.

So as odd as it sounds, we can only achieve true happiness by playing by the rules, by submitting our selves to the higher authority, etc., etc.

Your answer to the question, is, again, dogma, so I’m not going to address it, except, to say, again we’ve come up with different conclusions based on the same information.

I reject the concept of nothingness because, because, frankly, the idea that the world just exists seems illogical to me. The leap of logic I refuse to make though, is the one you’ve been taught to bull right through—that the reason for something must be god.

When you look at it from a logical standpoint, it must be something very much like what we describe as God. When you say you refuse the idea of nothing, I'm assuming you believe the universe has always existed, though in coexistance with a Greater Power. Kinda like pantheism mayeb. Because if the universe began at a finite point in time, than what came before was...nothing. Absolutely nothing!

Problem is, Blackie, x doesn’t necessarily equal y. You believe it to, so you present it as fact, but to me, y is undefined. We don’t know for sure, end of story. That you think so is an article of faith and doesn’t constitute truth.

Let me show you my way of thinking on the matter.

The universe began at some point in time. It is finite. Before the universe was brought into existence by God, there was nothing. Only God existed. Nothing else.

Now from nothing, nothing comes. Something cannot come from nothing. Logically, this is true.

So in order for X, the universe, to become something, something else must bring it about, create it, out of nothing. This something must have A.) an Intellect, and B.) a will. In other words, personality. Because nothing comes from nothing, in order to have something, something else with intention must do this. It cannot be without a Will because it must act on its own accord, by its own free choice, otherwise it is simply another function of the finite universe, which doesn't exist yet. If it is only an automated part of the universe, than you're just pushing the problem back. The Intellect is what designed the universe by its own will, the two go hand in hand.

In short, what brought the universe about had to have been what we describe as God. A reality utterly separate from the universe but responsible for its creation.

Now what the exact nature of this God actually is cannot be deduced by this process, but I hope in the previous lllustration (about God's love and all) I have at least begun to show you what the logical background behind my so-called dogmatic beliefs are.

Buddha tends to disagree with you.

"'Suppose there is no hereafter and there is no fruit, no result, of deeds done well or ill. Yet in this world, here and now, free from hatred, free from malice, safe and sound, and happy, I keep myself.' This is the second solace found by him.”

BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER UNLESS SOMETHING COMES AFTER! Ugh, I don't know how to communicate this...

If we are happy in this world, only to die and become non-existent, it doesn't matter whether we're happy or not! So what if I'm free from malice? I'm just the same as someone who is really hateful because we both have the same fate in the end. Somone who finds "happiness" by killing people is on the same level as someone who finds happiness by being safe and sound and doing good deeds! There is no distinction between the two!

This is again the result of the inward-turned focus of Buddhism. So what if nothing comes of my actions? As long as I am free from malice it doesn't matter! Forget about those other people who do messed up crap...as long as it doesn't effect you and you are free from the clutches of such evil it doesn't matter!

I know you're not a Buddhist, so I will stop ranting, but gosh darnit such philosophies irritate me!

I'm burning out here, so I'm going to have to cut this short. My main intention in this post was to show you the reasoning behind my beliefs, and, I will add, what I find lacking in yours.

If I'm preaching, well, I guess that can't be avoided, can it :p?


MrPopo

09-03-2005, 07:34 PM

But I can see here that this is closely related to the other saying of the Buddha that says "Be ye lamps unto yourselves" or something like that, which I think is stupid. It tells you that you are your own path to happiness (enlightenment) and that nobody can tell you how to achieve this. All empowerment, happiness, is ultimately derived from the self.

But Buddha himself said this to someone else! He was offering the way to enlightenment! It seems completely self-contradicing, imho. Maybe that's why Buddhism has become so different from what it was originally intended to be.


Enlightenment in Buddhism does have to come entirely from within. What enlightens you doesn't enlighten someone else. Buddha was telling his student that he couldn't teach him how to be enlightened, that he had to do it on his own. This is not a contradiction, since telling someone they have to enlighten themself won't enlighten them. It merely eliminates the fruitless search for enlightenment from another.

The universe began at some point in time. It is finite. Before the universe was brought into existence by God, there was nothing. Only God existed. Nothing else.

I'd like to contend that the current state of the universe came at some point in time, and thus is finite. However, that does not mean that the total history of the universe is finite. Theories such as the pulsating universe, which consists of a series of big bangs and contractions back to a singularity, allows for a universe with an infinite history, with our current history from the initial start of our Age (to steal a fantasy cliche) having a finite time.

If we are happy in this world, only to die and become non-existent, it doesn't matter whether we're happy or not! So what if I'm free from malice? I'm just the same as someone who is really hateful because we both have the same fate in the end. Somone who finds "happiness" by killing people is on the same level as someone who finds happiness by being safe and sound and doing good deeds! There is no distinction between the two!

Well, you have to consider if the seriel killer is truly happy, or if he is just deluded himself into thinking what he does makes him happy. True happiness is the goal, regardless of what comes after, which then leads you to the fun task of defining true happiness.


KnightHawk

09-04-2005, 04:46 PM

Anyways, I'm going to start with a question: If God is a reality, as you suspect, why not try to understand him, "make a science of him," as best you can? I have a fealing you'd say "Go ahead but don't ask me to believe in the same God, because your God is too restricting." Or something like that.

Actually, I wouldn’t. That would be the response of a teenage wannabe atheist fuckhead of the caliber of our own Jean. Though, I do agree, God as the Catholics describe him is something of a prick—but I already said that.

My response to “making a science” out of him his this: science is based on empirical knowledge of things we can observe using our senses, test, and retest to see if we get the same results. If it was possible to test the supernatural, impartially and empirically, then it wouldn’t be a matter of faith anymore, but a matter of fact. A) That would defeat the point of Christianity, which is faith in spite of the world, and B) would render the question of whether or not God exists and which religion he prefers completely to rest and rob us of our free will. Therefore, we can not make a science of the supernatural both by my reasoning (lack of empirical evidence) and by yours (God wants us to choose for ourselves).

On another note, this is my last post on this subject because you’ve slipped away entirely from reasonable arguments and are arguing entirely from a faith standpoint, and further discussion will be, quite frankly, pointless and rather circular.

[qutoe] If that's really what you think, than man, are you an IDIOT! Not to be offensive or anything, but if God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent, knows everything about you and knows EXACTLY what can make you truly happy, than WHY NOT LISTEN TO THIS GOD?? It doesn't make any sense to me. It seems to go against all reason and can only be defined as inane individualism.

Don't get me wrong. From your posts I can see you're smart, articulate, and have thought about these things to some extent. Its just I cannot understand for the life of me this mentality! Its your life, so what? If some God-entity knows everything and made you, than wouldn't he (it, whatever) have some idea what's good for you?[/quote]

In response to the first statement, you may take a flying fuck my man.

In response to the second, that’s a common Christian argument, and the common counter argument by both atheists and agnostics is that yours is simply herd mentality that’s too afraid to think for itself. Me, I think both are bullshit; what you said and the common counter. Yours is, quite frankly, narrow-minded, and theirs is pure teenage angst. My stance is the same as it’s ever been—we don’t know what’s going on outside the physical realm, and since I can’t know for sure, I’m going to live a life that pleases me. Such a life is one that has personal meaning to me, a life rich in friends, family, and shared with a woman I love. Your problem, Blackie, is that you can’t see how these things are ends in and of themselves. Morality, order, love, and light are their own rewards, and don’t need a God or guiding force.

Life, even in the absence of any higher power, is an end in and of itself. We exist. Period. I don’t need a higher power to validate my existence, even though I acknowldge a higher power, of some sort, exists. The very fact I’m happy, and strive to bring happiness into the lives of those around me, is enough.

Defining happiness is hard Blackie, but, at the bottom, true, basic happiness is food to eat, a roof over your head, and a strong support network. It doesn’t take a god to tell you you need to treat one another with as much love and respect as you can muster—it’s common sense. Buddha had it right Blackie—hatred, greed, malice, desire of the wrong things, excess, they cause only pain.

You’re trying to ague semantics, but the truth is, we should leave a good, moral life, a life that does more harm than good, simply because it benefits us as people. I refuse to believe a sociopath is happy outside of popular culture. Such mental defects are nearly always accompanied by a laundry list of misery and paranoid delusions. It’s the main reason I’m in psychology—it’s a way I can make a living while easing the pain of others.

I cannot argue with you further because your prejudices run too deep my friend…

…and more power to you.

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


Phyvo

09-04-2005, 09:36 PM

Take the church I grew up in, the Nazarene denomination. I was taught that dancing was immoral, that all forms of gambling, especially bingo (grrrrr—Catholics!), was wrong, and that, speaking of Catholics, ya’all was idolaters who worshiped the holy whore (a phrase used by my Sunday School teacher) who where all going to hell. By the by, they also had issues with the Baptists with whom my fiancé likes to hang, and Lutherans, Amish, Mennonites, HUGE issues with the Amish, and, well….you get the idea.

You don’t even want to know what I was taught about Islam or the Mormons.

The Southern Baptist Church I’ve attended a few times recently is almost as narrow minded, just a little more…scary. Yeah. Scary’s the word. Did you know I’m going to hell because I got tattoos and piercings? Um…never mind that for now.


Wow. No wonder you're not Christian. I mean, I know that not all Christians are perfect, and that some even say God hates blacks. I'm not going to judge them... Jesus is going to judge the world, not me, and he has an inside look at everyone's heart, unlike me. But it's still no wonder that you left whatever "Christianity" that was for your position now. I'm kinda glad you did.

In any case, the truth of the matter is that those people were concentrating on cleaning the outside of the cup, not the inside. It's a sad thing that people do. I would encourage you to find another church... I mean... I don't know what to say. I can't really do much when people who are Christians at least in name make such poor examples of Christ out of themselves, except try to do better myself through my trust in God and a willingness to serve others. In any case, I don't know what I can do, outside of say that I do not think of my beliefs amoung denominational lines, and admit that we can hardly say that we hold the truth when there are so many other denominations that say the same, appear to worship the same God, and yet heartily disagree with everyone else.

I'll make my best effort to glorify God and give you insight as to why I've stuck with him as best I can.

That’s because you’re looking at the wrong thing—honest mistake, I kinda took a rough right turn. The biased info I was referring to was Phyvo’s claim he could show me websites that “prove” the Bible is 100%.

Ack! I didn't mean to say that I could completely prove anything! I was only referring to sites which I could search for in order to provide more evidence and a better explanation for what I claimed. I by no means wanted to say that so strongly, as I am no expert in this field.

The next bit is preachy. It has to be, as I'd hate having to write this as "I believe..." and such. Keep in mind I'm just expressing why I think Biblical law is more than social convention, and why it applies to us.

First of all, God created us. He knows everything about us. He knows what makes us tick, and how to keep the "machine" oiled and in tip-top shape. More than that, however, he didn't create us so that we'd use our free will to go around and do whatever we wanted and hurt ourselves. Frankly, we don't know what's best for us. Though most philosophies perhaps agree that we should love one another, very few agree as to how the heck we do this.

With our seperation from God at the fall, God wanted some guide for us before Jesus came to save us, the only perfect example we have of a servant of God. Jesus being God helps, but I'm not going into that. Anyways, God created the law for three purposes, as far as I can see:

To provide a guide for us, in order to show us how to love one another and answer that tough question we couldn't answer ourselves. Since God designed us and wants us to be happy, he obviously wrote the law in order to help us to lead happy, furfilling lives.
To show us that we need to rely on God in order to have a loving relationship with him, specifically, reiterate that we need a messiah. Once you break one of those rules you fail. Since no man has ever not sinned in his life except Jesus, the messiah, I look to him for my lifeline to God.
Finally, to show what Jesus would be like. Though with Jesus been and sorta-gone, we don't really need the law for this. Note especially that Jesus furfilled the law, yet "broke" the Sabbath on occasion. He was not concerned with the letter, obviously, but with the spirit.

As a final note I'd like to conclude with something that explains why tatoos, dancing, and eating pigs is not evil (though eatible pigs and owls come more from Acts). "What goes into a man's mouth does not make him 'unclean,' but what comes out of his mouth, that is what makes him 'unclean.'"

That is my position on the law, and why I try not to steal, lie, murder, or have sex (at the moment). Emphasis on "try". /End my preaching

Anyways, I still encourage you to take one more look by finding another church and just going in. The best would probably be poor, inner-city, and have ex-convicts. I'm serious. They probably are much better Christians than I am.

Still, whether you do that or not is completely your choice, and I respect that. If you bothered to read my preaching, thanks, and I hope you understand me better for it. If you don't understand me better for it... I'm sorry. If you didn't read it, that's ok. It helps me figure out what I believe and why I believe it, at the very least.



Anyways... are we ever going back to talking about Creationism? It occured to me that since death did not begin until after we stopped sinning, that'd make it hard for evolution as we understand it to occur. Though I doubt that affects you people much...


KnightHawk

09-05-2005, 01:12 PM

*nods*

I could see how you got the impression I left the faith due to the people, but that's because I was using the crazies as an easy out when it came to giving Blackie examples of different thinking. My grandmother, who passed on some years ago, was the glowing example of everything a Christian should be; not judgemental, never preached or witnessed--no, she lived the life, and honestly, she's the reason I stuck with the faith for as long as I did.

Before I left the faith, I attended church at the Vineyard, which styles itself "a laid back church". The preacher worn torn jeans and sleeveless shirts, and dude man had more visible tattoos and peircings than I do. He didn't preach so much as talk about where the Bible led him, and the things he thought. The band was different every week, but most of them were hardcore punk bands who shrieked about god's love.

My point is P-man, is that I've been exposed to many different kinds of christians. I left the faith because I found the religion itself lacking in meaning to me, for more reasons than I could ever list.

But, as I keep saying, because it was lacking for me doesn't mean it's not a feast for someone else.

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


silence

09-05-2005, 03:38 PM

I got an awesome new philosophy teacher today.

Awesome.

That is all.

Try adding something besides mindless fellatiation next time, bud. Thanks. -Cent

Bah, I was happy because I like my new philosophy teacher. Does that really deserve neg rep and a warning from a mod? Would you rather I made a new thread in the General forum to say it rather than a single innocuous post? -silence


how about if you only have an offtopic oneliner you go about not saying it all then?


KnightHawk

09-11-2005, 02:59 PM

My last word on the subject is to quote venganza.org.

OPEN LETTER TO KANSAS SCHOOL BOARD

I am writing you with much concern after having read of your hearing to decide whether the alternative theory of Intelligent Design should be taught along with the theory of Evolution. I think we can all agree that it is important for students to hear multiple viewpoints so they can choose for themselves the theory that makes the most sense to them. I am concerned, however, that students will only hear one theory of Intelligent Design.

Let us remember that there are multiple theories of Intelligent Design. I and many others around the world are of the strong belief that the universe was created by a Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was He who created all that we see and all that we feel. We feel strongly that the overwhelming scientific evidence pointing towards evolutionary processes is nothing but a coincidence, put in place by Him.

It is for this reason that I’m writing you today, to formally request that this alternative theory be taught in your schools, along with the other two theories. In fact, I will go so far as to say, if you do not agree to do this, we will be forced to proceed with legal action. I’m sure you see where we are coming from. If the Intelligent Design theory is not based on faith, but instead another scientific theory, as is claimed, then you must also allow our theory to be taught, as it is also based on science, not on faith.

Some find that hard to believe, so it may be helpful to tell you a little more about our beliefs. We have evidence that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe. None of us, of course, were around to see it, but we have written accounts of it. We have several lengthy volumes explaining all details of His power. Also, you may be surprised to hear that there are over 10 million of us, and growing. We tend to be very secretive, as many people claim our beliefs are not substantiated by observable evidence. What these people don’t understand is that He built the world to make us think the earth is older than it really is. For example, a scientist may perform a carbon-dating process on an artifact. He finds that approximately 75% of the Carbon-14 has decayed by electron emission to Nitrogen-14, and infers that this artifact is approximately 10,000 years old, as the half-life of Carbon-14 appears to be 5,730 years. But what our scientist does not realize is that every time he makes a measurement, the Flying Spaghetti Monster is there changing the results with His Noodly Appendage. We have numerous texts that describe in detail how this can be possible and the reasons why He does this. He is of course invisible and can pass through normal matter with ease.

I’m sure you now realize how important it is that your students are taught this alternate theory. It is absolutely imperative that they realize that observable evidence is at the discretion of a Flying Spaghetti Monster. Furthermore, it is disrespectful to teach our beliefs without wearing His chosen outfit, which of course is full pirate regalia. I cannot stress the importance of this enough, and unfortunately cannot describe in detail why this must be done as I fear this letter is already becoming too long. The concise explanation is that He becomes angry if we don’t.

You may be interested to know that global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of Pirates since the 1800s. For your interest, I have included a graph of the approximate number of pirates versus the average global temperature over the last 200 years. As you can see, there is a statistically significant inverse relationship between pirates and global temperature.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

In conclusion, thank you for taking the time to hear our views and beliefs. I hope I was able to convey the importance of teaching this theory to your students. We will of course be able to train the teachers in this alternate theory. I am eagerly awaiting your response, and hope dearly that no legal action will need to be taken. I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence.

Sincerely Yours,

Bobby Henderson, concerned citizen.

P.S. I have included an artistic drawing of Him creating a mountain, trees, and a midget. Remember, we are all His creatures.

http://www.venganza.org/him2.jpg



I've been touched by his noodley apendage!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6e/Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg/800px-Touched_by_His_Noodly_Appendage.jpg

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


DarkHorse

09-12-2005, 12:46 AM

I'm new to the boards, but I'd like to applaud the discussion that has gone on over the past five pages (yes, I read just about all of it). For the most part people relied upon logic and referenced arguments, and I for one found the lengthy replies refreshing.

I have my own views on the subject, but the majority of the arguments have already been expressed. Therefore, I'll only respond to KnightHawk's last post with a respectful "RAmen".


Phyvo

09-12-2005, 10:15 PM

Personally, I don't really see why KH's last post is all that informative. Intelligent Designers are not all Creationists. Even if most of the ID movement is Christian/Jewish/Islamic, ID theorists themselves are united only in that they believe pure Darwinism could not have resulted in life as we know it. Some believe in common ancestry and some are the crazy "the world was surrounded in ice" people you make them out to be. Perhaps one believes in this spaghetti monster. As it is though, the spaghetti monster does not add anything to the debate. It simply makes fun of and stereotypes one side of it. I might as well portray all Darwinists as wanting to murder handicapped people in order to help "evolve" the species. This is a serious discussion forum, not a funny pictures thread.

It doesn't help matters when Darwinists refuse to defend their position (at the recent conference, for example) and instead devote themselves to portraying the opposition as Creationist idiots. They are either not so confident of their position or think that it is easier to defeat their opponents by not debating the issue. I just wish they would so that we could have an actual winner of some debates (for what they're worth) instead of this nasty public relations business. I'm not saying that everyone here who disaggrees with ID is guilty of this. I just feel that quoting the spaghetti monster site does not belong in a serious discussion of the ID movement or Creationism.

Finally:
But, as I keep saying, because it was lacking for me doesn't mean it's not a feast for someone else.

Meh. I appreciate the inclusive sentiment, but pluralism makes no sense to me whatsoever, even in the limitted sense. As it is, Jesus used the definate article when stating "I am the way, the truth, the the life," shortly followed by "No one comes to the father [God] except through me." Therefore, I can only agree to disagree with you. I just wanted you to understand that, and not get the notion that I actually believe that you, or both you and me at the same time, are right.


KnightHawk

09-12-2005, 11:06 PM

Because you have a Crucifix shoved right up your ass, right.

Love. Peace. Metallica. :kh:


Centy

09-14-2005, 03:35 AM

I might as well portray all Darwinists as wanting to murder handicapped people in order to help "evolve" the species.

That would require you actually being funny and witty in some form or fashion.

This is a serious discussion forum, not a funny pictures thread.

Protip: you are all having an intellectual cock measuring contest on an intarweb forum board dedicated to a game company that takes standard scifi/D&D fantasy schlock and spits out games where you strive to do millions of the same actions over and over to no avail because some 13 year old Korean is still going to kick your ass. Remember to obtain the star scepter before taking on Lord Nukingfuts in his lair. If you think you have the dignity or even pretense to think you're above the occasional obnoxious internet meme being used to jerk you around, you are to be sadly disappointed. Double tap A to avoid the green ooze!


Harbinger

09-14-2005, 01:45 PM

Meh. I appreciate the inclusive sentiment, but pluralism makes no sense to me whatsoever, even in the limitted sense. As it is, Jesus used the definate article when stating "I am the way, the truth, the the life," shortly followed by "No one comes to the father [God] except through me." Therefore, I can only agree to disagree with you. I just wanted you to understand that, and not get the notion that I actually believe that you, or both you and me at the same time, are right.

There are many ways to address this point. I'll go with a few of the popular ones.

1) This was said in one part of the bible, as are other things. Why must we make this a sticking point that can potentially cause hatred and war, when we ignore other mandates already? Every wonder whether the bible forbids booze? Well, it does... and it doesn't. There strong evidence both ways.
What if, like the other inconsistencies in the Bible, this is a matter of a line having been fabricated or misheard by the authors?


2) I'm not familiar with the original language in which the verse was written, but there exists the possibility that it wasn't translated correctly. I'm not arguing that it's "wrong" per se, just that cultural references and nuances of the time are totally lost. Maybe when he said that it was common to speak in general by using definite articles. We do wierder things in English, it's not that far fetched.

3) Assuming the author heard and recorded the words correctly, and the connotation was not lost, what if this was a metaphor? Jesus almost ALWAYS spoke in parable, so why shouldn't he do it for this line? What does he mean by saying he is the only way to God? Maybe he's just saying that the path he chose is the only way, or being LIKE him is the only way?

You're applying an edic interpretation to the saying, which doesn't make sense. He made the statement before the whole idea of "believe in Jesus, ask forgiveness, go to Heaven" came about. So when you read it and think "by 'through me' he means you have to be 'saved' in the sense that I know," you're reversing the timeline and being inconsistent. What he meant by that isn't necessary what you think he meant by it.

There are valid interpretations for his words that allow for pluralism, and let me say on a personal note, that God is way too fucking big to pin down in a logical way. God is in a place called Heaven, hanging with his angels and dead people... that's a good way to explain it to a small child, but it's a tool or stepping stone we have to use to begin to understand what God even is, nevermind what His law is. To think that that covers the reality of God is either short sighted or arrogant.


vBulletin v3.0.7, Copyright ©2000-2007, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.