Bush endorses Creation Science

Justavian

9th August 2005 - 06:03 AM

QUOTE

I want someone here, right now, to show me evidence that a creature in modern times has changed from one creature in another.
 That kind of large transformation isn't something that's going to happen overnight. You can't expect someone to breed chickens for three years and have a dog pop out of one of the eggs. Most people have a hard time really getting a feel for how much time has been available for the enormous variety of life we see to develop. When you talk about thousands or millions of generations - the human brain has a hard time working with that scale, because it's not part of everyday life.

Though i must admit, if one were to come to the table with the assumption that the earth is only a few thousand years old - then yes, it would be difficult to reconcile the huge changes.

Don't believe the human eye with all its complexity could have developed from a simple, single photo-sensitive cell? Yeah, that's a big jump - but divide that up into a billion individual steps. That's a big number. If you look at just a few hundred steps, you wouldn't see any change - you may not even see any real distinguishable changes over thousands of generations. But when you start getting into geologic timescales - millions of generations or more - that's when changes like you mention could happen.

Some people also doubt that this kind of thing could happen because "What good is half an eye?" But a half an eye is a HUGE advantage over no eye at all. Even genetic changes that provide tiny improvements can sweep through a population over time - it's just a matter of statistics. If a tiny organism has a single flat photo-sensitive cell, that would give it a very limited ability to detect a predator (or prey). But that's a huge advantage over just trying to bump into it! And if one of these organisms mutated in such a way that its photo-sensitive cell was concave - it would now be able to tell direction, in addition to light and dark. Perhaps a few thousand generations later, tiny changes in the DNA sequence led to a membrane that covered this eye-spot. Thousands more generations go by, and genetic diversity has ended up producing a fluid that separates the membrane from the photo-sensitve concave cell. Now it can focus.

I'm not saying that's exactly how it happened, but if you can't believe some GIANT leap between biological structures, break it into billions, or trillions of generations (maybe more, if you talk about how many generations the single celled ancestors went through).

Don't believe that random chemical reactions led to a self replicating molecule, eventually leading to simple proteins? It is a little harder to believe. But the time scale here is even larger. Before life came into being on this planet, the seas would have been filled with raw materials. The seas would have been filled with trillions of individual molecules that could serve as the building blocks for self replicators. So over the course of billions of years, with the interactions between countless molecules - is it that unreasonable to think that a few molecules under just the perfect conditions happened to join together to form a molecule that is "sticky" to its components (forming a self replicator)?

Yeah, it may still be hard to believe. But it only had to happen once. And as of right now, as far as we know it has only happened once in the history of the universe. So in the billions of years that the universe has existed, throughout the hundreds of billions of galaxies, and throughout the hundreds of billions of stars per galaxy, and throughout billions of chemical interactions going on every second - it only had to happen once. With that many chances to play the lottery, you would have won a few quadrillion times.

Kazmer Ujvarosy

9th August 2005 - 07:03 AM

First, the second law of thermodynamics is for closed systems. But in reality there are no closed systems in nature. Closed natural systems exist only in closed minds.

Of course you can argue that the universe as a whole is a closed system, but that delusion does not make it closed. In reality the universe is open to its input, seed, or initial cause that generated the universe for the purpose of self-reproduction.

Only the seed of the universe has no cause outside of itself, so it is effectively closed. The genetic process of reproduction forms an unbroken physical link from the seed of the universe to the present complexity and diversity of life. The output of the present universe constitutes the input for the next universe. Just in case you wish to know, Christ constitutes the cosmic system's input and output. For this reason he tells us in Revelation 22:13: "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end."

You seem to have the delusion that intelligent design (ID) has nothing in common with science. Actually it is incomparably more rational than the illusion of evolution from a simple beginning. The reason is that it attributes the generation of life forms to a higher intelligence. On the other hand ID fails to specify the designer's identity. Again, just in case you wish to know who is behind the creation of the universe, you only have to read John 14:8-9. When Philip wanted to see the Creator, and said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied," Jesus presented the evidence Philip could literally touch: "He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Christ is making the point that he is the Parent Seed or Creator of the universe, just as an acorn is the parent seed or creator of the mighty oak. Thus the universe didn't just "blink" into existence from nothing, because the Parent Seed of the universe generated that field of life or biofield what in science we call quantum vacuum, dark energy, quintessence, cosmological constant, and you name it.

In any case if you're unhappy with the most parsimonious and elegant scientific theory of creation stating that human life created the universe for the production of human life in its own image, go ahead and falsify the theory.

Can you deny human life's existence? Can you deny that human life comes only and always from human life? What observation tells you that nonlife generated life? Were you present at the abiotic generation of life? If nonlife is so creative, why doesn't it get in touch with you and make you enlightened? Christ, my creator, made himself known to his children, and identified himself as the Creator of the universe. So why is your nonliving creator in hiding? Why is it silent? Why are you speaking on behalf of your nonliving creator? Can you see the magnitude of your delusion?

Note what Manly P. Hall wrote in his monumental work, The Secret Teachings of All Ages (19th ed., Los Angeles, The Philosophical Research Society, 1973, p. CLIV): "A philosopher might declare that a universe could be made out of a man, but the foolish would regard this as an impossibility, not realizing that a man is a seed from which a universe may be brought forth."

Of course you all have the right to keep believing in the Big Bang, in the discredited superstition of life's spontaneous generation, or in everything from Tom Thumb to Green Giants, but do not tell me that the entire universe was compressed into a dimensionless initial state when with all the technology we have we cant even squeeze a snowball into a single water molecule. Sorry, I'm not nearly as credulous as you are. You even believe that a simple cause can yield what it clearly does not have, i.e. greater complexity. If your kind of science demands faith in the creation of something from nothing, I prefer the rationality of that cosmology which derives the universe from the highest form of life that exists.

J. Wensveen

9th August 2005 - 08:56 AM

Just some comments:

QUOTE

Again, just in case you wish to know who is behind the creation of the universe, you only have to read John 14:8-9. When Philip wanted to see the Creator, and said to Jesus, "Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied," Jesus presented the evidence Philip could literally touch: "He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, 'Show us the Father'?"

Christ is making the point that he is the Parent Seed or Creator of the universe, just as an acorn is the parent seed or creator of the mighty oak. Thus the universe didn't just "blink" into existence from nothing, because the Parent Seed of the universe generated that field of life or biofield what in science we call quantum vacuum, dark energy, quintessence, cosmological constant, and you name it.
 So, here you are assuming to know what Christ is talking about. Who gave you the right to put your words and interpretation into the mouth of Jezus. This is you and yours speaking, propagating as if you are God, and you are Not.

If you so believe in what the Bible says, In Genesis, God created Adam and Eve as being the First Humans. Adam and Eve had Children, but it states clearly that Those sons found a Wife in a Faraway land. Where did that wife come from? Did they marry their own sister who went away somewhere?

About Evolution, a nice example of a "Genetic dead end mutation" is the Irish Elk i think. The bucks of these animals fight for leadership of the troop by banging their antlers together and using force to show who is strongest. The strongest male procreates, thus his genes are passed on to the next generation. One day, one male had a genetic mutation that changed the form of his antlers in such a way that a sharp part pointed in such a way that when he banged antlers with a rival, the sharp part would wound the opponent and killing him that way. This is a nice way for this mutation to ensure his own survival, thus this mutation won all fights and his offspring was ensured survival. To bad that he also gave this mutation to some of his ofspring, thus they also won the fights by wounding/killing its opponents. Not long after, a few generations, and all the elk had this gene, resulting that both males in the fight wounded and often killed each other, resulting in the extinction of this genetic line. This was a mutation that made a quick change in a species that looked good at first, but did not prove viable.

Other changes might, and will be passed on in generations. That is evolution.

starhunter

9th August 2005 - 09:26 AM

QUOTE (Kræn Knude+Aug 5 2005, 12:10 PM)

As I see it, science is just human perception of the world around them. If this perception is religious, then why shouldn't science be?

The chief difference between religious perceptions and scientific perceptions of the world is that science is an orderly body of knowledge that is the basis for the technological applications all around us, which cannot just be a matter of perception. I wouldn't equate faith and science, as if they were opposite views of the world, with equal validity on the same terms. IMO, they're apples and oranges, they don't have anything to do with each other, really.

Faith doesn't undergo mathematical tests of its views, and produces no applications in technology. Not that it's irrelevent, it is, just not compared to science on like terms.

Insyght

9th August 2005 - 12:47 PM

Justavian,

Appreciate your reply. Just a few things, I do grasp the concept of billions our years.

My problem is human developement. I keep pulling such conversations back to humans, focus on humans please. Reason: We supposedly developed over about 100,000 years - some have tried to bump this up towards a million years now.

Our abilities are un-matched by other life-forms. A few key points of interest; Music. Other animals created music - in particular, birds, yet to they it is not something to listen to for enjoyment - it's mating call.

Humans on the other hand, have music deeply embedded in this mind so to speak. There have been some fascinating experiments with music, including the let down experiment on chimps, when placed in a corridor with "ugly sounds" playing. Humans run from it, chimps don't care. Musical sequence is understood at a cellular level. This has been experimented with in the lab. At first it was assumed (logically) that a cell would fire when a single note was received. So they play a note in a sequence of notes, the cell fires. They change the requence of notes, and the cell no longer fires. The cell it's self desides what music is. One might wonder why this ability could developer at the cellular level in humans in 100,000 years, but not in animals in millions upon millions of years?

Eyesight? eyes might develope, but the brain must develope to understand these new signals. The human brain does not just take the image from two eyes and produce a blurry overlapped image and there you go, no, it breaks it up into many stages, it recognizes outline/shapes which draws on a database of previously known shapes, color, texture, it must combine these two images seamlessly to allow depth of field estimation. Quite an amazing development. Add to that blinking... the brain switches off input and uses an almost buffered image when you blink, so prevent a shutter effect. Nice chance developement. The same regions of brain on a person born with no eyes for example, has been seen under MRI's as becoming active when audio is heard - it figures it cannot be used with eyes, so somehow it re-routes it's self to interpret sound and it such blind individuals is able to neccessitate very accuration phonic and accustic direction and distance fortelling. Nice side effect.

I don't have time to continue, but it goes on and on. Simple things eyes to percieve, others, especially when such things appear to be isolated to the single life form of a human being, and not in any of the 1000's upon 1000's of other biological life forms on the planet, really has to be factored into the probibility equation.

Regards.

Guest_Mike

9th August 2005 - 01:26 PM

I'm a perceptual scientist who teaches and publishes on visual neurophysiology.

The visual and auditory systems of humans are quite impressive. But they also have numerous limits and flaws, potentially caused by the evolution of the system in specific environments.

As an exercise, consider what we CAN'T do. Many animals have abilities that far surpass ours.

But the bottom line is that development of our perceptual systems was very possible via mutation and natural selection.

Disbelieve that all you want. Your wishful thinking won't change the outcome of equations.

Guest

9th August 2005 - 01:38 PM

BTW, many, many qualities of our visual system are shared with other, similar mammals -- more so than the differences. I suggest starting with the macaque. Much of what you mention about the human system is actually based on research on monkeys and cats, and merely inferred to operate in a similar way in humans.

It's pretty thick irony. LOL

Adrian Wake

9th August 2005 - 02:05 PM

Some of the ID enthusiasts use the the arguement about life being to complex to have arisen by chance Some have quoted odds on this forum showing what an unlikely event this is.

Can any of them tell me, what the odds are, of a being so intelligent and powerful that it can create and maintain an entire universe, arising by chance??

solidspin

9th August 2005 - 03:00 PM

Insyght -

QUOTE

My problem is human developement. I keep pulling such conversations back to humans, focus on humans please. Reason: We supposedly developed over about 100,000 years - some have tried to bump this up towards a million years now.
 You are unfortunately wayyyyyyyy far off. Where did you get 100,000 yrs????? A. Khartoumis just pushed back the hominid timeline to over 5.5million yrs. Another hominid was just discovered which beat A. Khartoumis by another million.

You would treat yourself if you spent some time looking at the thermodynamics arguments surrounding the evolution of the human skull and all the anthropologic studies done on them. Absolutely fascinating.

Kazmer Ujvarosy -

Thanks. You made my point for me. IDers keep claiming that there's no room for all this "heated" evolution in such a restricted (closed) system like Earth. Of course it's NOT a closed system! We are radiating gobs of heat all the time. I'm surprised that you babble on w/ unsupportable bullsh&t from the Bible.

I am under no delusions, sir. ID has NOTHING in common w/ science, since science is based on a methodology which, if not complete, at least it's empirical in nature, self-consistent, reductive and self-correcting.

Your idiotic statements like 'Christ constitutes the cosmic system's input and output' and 'Can you deny human life's existence? Can you deny that human life comes only and always from human life? What observation tells you that nonlife generated life? Were you present at the abiotic generation of life? If nonlife is so creative, why doesn't it get in touch with you and make you enlightened? Christ, my creator, made himself known to his children, and identified himself as the Creator of the universe. So why is your nonliving creator in hiding? Why is it silent? Why are you speaking on behalf of your nonliving creator? Can you see the magnitude of your delusion?'

Dude - please up your thorazine levels. These ones aren't working. You have to be on this planet in order to test a theory. First of all, give me a cogent, testable theory (which you failed to do) and I will disprove it readily. Secondly, look at the Miller experiments in the 60's where basic building blocks (amino acids) were formed from other molecules. Look at the recent data which found simple sugars in gaseous nebulae thousands of lightyears away in deep space.

This is one of the basic postulates that all undergrad chemistry students are taught: If you reach an activation energy for compounds to sufficiently react and the product is lower in energy than the starting materials, the product will be formed. It's a paraphrase of the Hammond Postulate. I wasn't present at the abiotic generation of life, but it's easily demonstrable in a lab w/ very little in terms of equipment, energy or materials.

Why are you imbued w/ such fear about the absence of a creator? It's so liberating to not lean on this as some sort of handicap. You don't have to be credulous, just understand some math (and be willing to forego your fear, that there really is nothing there).

Jerry Duke

9th August 2005 - 03:13 PM

But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him. (Hebrews 11:6)

QUOTE (a_ht+Aug 6 2005, 05:13 AM)

QUOTE (Jerry Duke+Aug 5 2005, 08:53 PM)

But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost: In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.

QUOTE (a_ht+Aug 5 2005, 08:27 PM)

...It gave me 1/ 10^38 chances or so...

That is only the probability of accidentally typing the phrase "The Darwinian Theory of Evoulution". The probability of accidentally typing the information contained in the DNA of a system composed of 100,000 or so creatures is less than 1/10^200,000,000,000,000,000. Typing the information is not nearly as complex as actually creating the creatures and their symbiotic relationships.

...show me that the chance life can arrise without god is ZERO and ill believe...

What is your standard of measure? Consider a universe the size of our own cooled to Absolute Zero, with not one atom moving anywhere. Suppose you introduce a stray electron with a diameter of less than 1/10^13 cm into such a universe. If it strikes an atom, it will either be absorbed or move more and more slowly until it ceases to move. It will have no effect on the overall temperature of the universe. Likewise if you introduce a particle into such a universe, which has a mass less than 1/10^200,000,000,000,000,000 part of the total mass of the universe, the temperature will still be Absolute Zero.

solidspin

9th August 2005 - 03:49 PM

Jerry -

I have no faith, so I ain't worried about pleasing anybody but my PhD advisor!!!!

Also, your thermo is off. First 1) You violated the 3rd law, since you can't achieve absolute zero. 2) You also forgot about equilibrium of a system. you injected energy (temp) into your impossible universe scenario, thereby changing equilibrium. Your assertion at the end of your nonsense violates the 2nd law, since you think equilibrium back to absolute zero will be reestablished.

J. Wensveen

9th August 2005 - 03:50 PM

That electron you just introduced has an impulse. If you wait long enough, it will hit another atom. that atom will move, since there is nothing to stop it from moving. After that, that atom will encounter another atom, and the small nuclear forces will prevail and then 2 atoms will be attracted to each other. and so on and so forth.

By introducing one electron with movement into a universe side area at 0°K, you introduce energy. And the small nuclear forces will make sure that gravity wells will form.

The Thermodynamic law / Gas Laws (Theories, but people were not so bright in naming things correct in those times) Do not apply on Large area's. The Thermodynamic law is designed for a closed space.

So, introducing 1 electron into a universe of absolute zero will over time increase the temperature of the universe.

After all: Time = energy.

solidspin

9th August 2005 - 03:50 PM

oh, and I looooooooove your specious use of exponents!

Insyght

9th August 2005 - 03:53 PM

Solid spin,

Regarding age of man, thx for update info. Mine was a bit old I guess.

Mr sight scientist guy,

Of course eagles can see further than us, a sparrows would be able to respond faster than us - you would call that adaptive evolution, faster eyes needed so.... I would call it a design feature. Why would I take a car that is only capable of 50 kmph and equip it with 18inch chromes, porsche style brakes, shocks, stearing? Na, I think standard form parts would be applicable.

Logically therefore, things our eyes cannot do (limits) do not prove that they were not designed that way.

All,

People always side step these two points:

1) Superior brain. How?

2) Music... come on, no creature in the wild even comes close. Don't see squirels in the woods knocking away on trees with they pawls. You would if they had musical desire. How did we humans develope musical abilities? Why would that be naturally selected? - wait let me answer that for you - a guy knocked a few notes in a pattern, and got laid by 20 chicks. Then he taught his children and they got laid lots too. Eventually a gene developed to help them understand why it works? - HA HA

So for arguments sake, lets say that evolution can develope anything to survive, long arms, wings.

Why didn't all creatures:

1) develope superior intelligence? Surely this is one of the most powerful abilities to prevent a creature becoming prey? A puny man, or a young child can bring down a fullsized adult bear who is so much more superior is body strength, hight, speed, climbing ability. Why therefore didn't one bear survive more than other bears and pass on intelligence? Don't try and claim that intelligence would de detrimental to such animals and strength won over... intelligence would come along WITH strength.

2) Multiple internal organs. Why didn't creatures develope multiple hearts, lungs and other vital organs? Logically if cells can produce that pulse in synchronized fashion and even cause adjoining cells to pulse as the same rate upon touching - to allow heart creation, then why didnot evolution in the millions of years it had produce a creature with two hearts, 4 lungs. Why is it that most creatures although being vastly different on the ourside share a sometimes striking simularlity on the inside?

3) limbs. Why do all mamals appear to follow a basic stricture of 4 limbs? 2 arms 2 legs. Birds have 2 legs, 2 wings. Why 4? out of all the millions upon millions of years of development, why didn't a species spring into existance which has 6 limbs or 8?

Which came first?

1) DNA or protein based DNA reader ?
2) Sperm, testicles, tract, Penis or human egg, ovaries, filopian tubes, womb, certex Vagina ?
3) Heart, Veins, bloodcells, lungs ?
4) Teeth, Mouth, Throad, Stomack, Kidney/Liver, Intestines ?

We are not talking about a single complex mechanism such as a bloodcell being produced by chance. We are talking about one mechanism being produced which works with another complex mechanism, which works with another and another and another to produce a complete ultra-complex system.

One without another would be redundent and would have an equal chance of being removed by natural selection. Only way to guarentee that it would be selected and continued is to be of some benefit to the longetivity of the life form.

Show me the order of development for the other complex systems.

J. Wensveen

9th August 2005 - 04:02 PM

QUOTE

Show me the order of development for the other complex systems.
 The human, during its development from fertilized egg towards empbryo goes through all development stages of evolution.

one cell organism
multiple cell organism
Sponge
Cavity animal
and so forth.

During each stage, it is impossible to compare this human embryo with the embryo of no matter what other mammal or bird or even seashell. The difference between those is that at a certain stage, spined creatures keep developing while the lower forms start specializing. After the point spined creatures start specializing, only then the spiecies can be determined.

Darklingknight

9th August 2005 - 05:19 PM

I must ask you when the last time your Creator talked to YOU in specific. Not that nagging voice in your head but actually came down and tried to SAVE you. You are relying on an old book that has seen so many editions and changes for personal gain that we can't be sure what is going on. Also don't go and tell me that this book is his legacy as I can't see him wanting us to rely on the word of others instead of our own belief with no need for proof. The Bible IMO isn't conductive of belief as it gives reason.

Sum Dum Guy

9th August 2005 - 06:01 PM

QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 9 2005, 03:53 PM)

Which came first?

2) Sperm, testicles, tract, Penis or human egg, ovaries, filopian tubes, womb, certex Vagina ?

I'm not sure which rock you evolved out from under, but everyone knows the penis cums before vagina's like 99% of the time. Just ask my girlfriend....

letstalk

9th August 2005 - 07:09 PM

the battle between science and religion is all about control.control for monetary gain.the cost of living and the wonders of science are drivin the steady income wars.new tactics are called for.find an enemy and start a war.big money!true science and true religion are just prisoners in this gigantic struggle for mind control.it's like mafia territorys.strong dominate and use the weak.openly and secretly.can anyone just say NO!?

reality

9th August 2005 - 08:00 PM

QUOTE (Guest+Aug 8 2005, 06:19 AM)

QUOTE (reality+Aug 8 2005, 06:03 AM)

so the gist of this debate would be to say........stop tryin ta prove god to the massses and prove him to yourself!!for while the god legend ruled the masses of yor by familiarity now the science legend rules of late by same!!and why is that?!?firstust with the mostest of benefit to the masses wins!!

Science and religion are completely separate animals.

Simply believing in something is where religion comes in.

Tentatively believing in something because it is consistent with, and not inconsistent with, what we know, is where science comes in.

It has absolutely nothing to do with popular opinion.

Educate yourself on methods of knowledge acquisition. Science isn't an alternative or an idea, it's a methodology that is based, really, on common sense. It's just applied comon sense. There's nothing esoteric or secret about it. Nor is it a set of beliefs like creationism.

oops!sorry i interrupted your black and white existance.when science actually conquers hate,war,murder,famine,abortion,death,etc.ect.get back to me.

af0

9th August 2005 - 08:07 PM

QUOTE

whonew

9th August 2005 - 08:20 PM

QUOTE (J. Wensveen+Aug 9 2005, 04:02 PM)

QUOTE

Montec

10th August 2005 - 01:56 AM

Who are we to assume that evolution is not part of god's laws that were used to create the universe. After all biological entities were around and changing well before Darwin took his first step. And to those that say fossils where put there by god, I say God does not decieve, he/she/it just makes some things really complicated to understand.

Insyght

10th August 2005 - 02:42 AM

QUOTE

QUOTE
Show me the order of development for the other complex systems.

The human, during its development from fertilized egg towards empbryo goes through all development stages of evolution.

one cell organism
multiple cell organism
Sponge
Cavity animal
and so forth.

During each stage, it is impossible to compare this human embryo with the embryo of no matter what other mammal or bird or even seashell. The difference between those is that at a certain stage, spined creatures keep developing while the lower forms start specializing. After the point spined creatures start specializing, only then the spiecies can be determined.
 Difference is, the embryo is following an already existing code. By far, this is not the same

Justavian

10th August 2005 - 02:53 AM

QUOTE

Who are we to assume that evolution is not part of god's laws that were used to create the universe.
 Well, information in the bible doesn't seem to jive too well with evolution. But i agree - what is stopping people from believing that god started the universe with the laws set up specifically to result in the genisis of human life?

reality

10th August 2005 - 06:27 AM

QUOTE (af0+Aug 9 2005, 08:07 PM)

QUOTE

when science actually conquers hate,war,murder,famine,abortion,death,etc.ect.get back to me.
 Yes, because religion has done so much to help the human race... Lets start out with the crusades, then we can move on to the inquisition, then how about WWII, and let's now forget about this bran new war on terror. Yep, I am just so happy that religion is there to guide us towards peace and love...

And yes, that is sarcasm. so we have a mexican stand off do we!?then stop bein a groupy to the authoritys!!just say no!!rebel and dont take it!!that's if you are really a humane caring soul!!go n a hunger strike till equality is achieved and all the bad things go away!!or,pick a side and get your reward!!

J. Wensveen

10th August 2005 - 07:17 AM

QUOTE

Difference is, the embryo is following an already existing code. By far, this is not the same
 The Zygote is following the same code as all other Zygotes. It is evolution that added additional code after this start that makes development continue and in the end make a human embryo into a human foetus and an other type embryo into an other type foetus.

But still, the development goes through similar stages during this early phase, even though the DNA differs. After all, over 95% of the DNA of all mammals is the same.

Insyght

10th August 2005 - 02:56 PM

Perhaps I am not getting across clearly, the meaning of my question, so I shall try again; Natural selection is a term given to a mutation or change in the genetic code of a lifeform that results in some change giving some kind of advantage over others in the species, enabling the new creature to procreate and spead the mutation throughout the species. It was selected in another words, because the mutation helped it to kick butt in some way.

If a mutation has a negative effect, it is not selected. It just dies out. - No argument with this from my POV.

Now, back to my point; how does a creature become selected, when it suddently pops up a heart cell? or a blood cell?

All the bones I see in fossils appear to have one thing in common. Marrow. One of it's purposes? to produce red blood cells. Red because of the hemoglobin which contains among other things iron - nice for carrying oxygen and carbon dioxide. Without red blood cells in our blood stream we would die.

Red blood cells without a circulatory system are almost useless.

A complete circulatory system would not have the chance to develope in the absense of red blood cells. The heart it's self surely would take many many mutations.

Before all these complex systems become unionized, the creature is left with a burden to carry. How did it become selected?

J. Wensveen

10th August 2005 - 03:16 PM

You are assuming that blood had to develop before a transport system was developed. This is either just a stubborn approach, or you do not understand your biology.

There are life forms, like some insects and other creatures without a bone structure that have a type of circulation system. This is used as cooling and for the transportation of glucose and such tasks. They do not have red blood cells coming from bone marrow, they do not even have Bones. An octopus does not have bones, so no marrow, so no red blood cells from that marrow.

At the moment you are reversing steps and are using that to disprove a theory.

Even a common earth worm has a heart, several even, and a tube through which it pumps its "blood"

I guess that some proto life form that developed some sort of muscle that enabled it to "pump" glucose to its cells through its vascular tube in times of stress was able to escape its predator, or catch its prey better then the one that couldn't. and therefore had a better chance on survival, procreated more and soon was the dominant form, while another form survived without this trait but instead developed a camouflage color.

WaterBreath

10th August 2005 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 10 2005, 09:56 AM)

Natural selection is a term given to a mutation or change in the genetic code of a lifeform that results in some change giving some kind of advantage over others in the species, enabling the new creature to procreate and spead the mutation throughout the species. It was selected in another words, because the mutation helped it to kick butt in some way.

Hey Insyght, long time no see.

I think "Natural Selection" is either a misnomer, or is incorrectly described in general. I've always looked at the whole idea of evolution as a process of selection by elimination. (Which I guess is backwards of how you approached it in your post.)

Creatures who are unfit relative to competing creatures will die out. It doesn't matter whether that unfitness is the result of a mutation, or if it is due to staying the same (stagnancy) while competitors develop mutations. It could even be entirely due to an environmental change causing existing genetic variations which were previously on equal footing to suddenly become unequal in terms of fitness.

It's important to remember that mutations are for the most part "random". Anything that has a decent probability of happening, does happen. And unless the mutation is something that is actually a detriment to the creature's fitness in the given environment, it has no less chance of survival than a neighboring creature without the mutation. You said that this extra mutation is a burden, but I don't see why that should always be so, though it is certainly possible. Not providing an advantage is not the same as causing a disadvantage.

There is the question of how an "null" mutation can propagate widely through a species though. If it occurs in an already fitter animal (regardless of whether it's due to actual genetic superiority or simply environmental circumstance), then it will get passed to more offspring.

At any rate, I think that this is crucial to the consistency and viability of evolution as a natural process. After all, if it truly was only "survival of the fittest", then very, very few would ever survive. The "average" would die out, which is clearly not the case. So, I propose rather that evolution be considered "elimination of the unfit", though people overly concerned with PC-ness might oppose that.

Insyght

10th August 2005 - 05:51 PM

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

At the moment you are reversing steps and are using that to disprove a theory.
 Nope, just trying to understand. I have already disproven it (From the point of view that there is no God) to my self via other means - many other means.

I guess that some proto life form that developed some sort of muscle that enabled it to "pump" glucose to its cells through its vascular tube in times of stress was able to escape its predator, or catch its prey better then the one that couldn't. and therefore had a better chance on survival, procreated more and soon was the dominant form, while another form survived without this trait but instead developed a camouflage color.
 Possibly.

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Hey Insyght, long time no see.
 Likewise. I though you had given up this place? been considering doing the same my self. I love ready the scientific posts, but I'm finding now that most of the posts coming here are Creation bashing. It's sad.

There is the question of how an "null" mutation can propagate widely through a species though. If it occurs in an already fitter animal (regardless of whether it's due to actual genetic superiority or simply environmental circumstance), then it will get passed to more offspring.
 Nicely put and this is the point I was trying to get at, but you stated it more precisely.

J. Wensveen,

All things are possible right? There might be many logical ways that the multiple complex systems could have developed individually and stays for the next part to develope, become becoming one functioning super-system. God is one such possiblity

af0

10th August 2005 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE

All things are possible right?
 Actually, no.

Insyght

10th August 2005 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE

QUOTE
All things are possible right?

Actually, no.
 Another four DWORD's of magnetic media becomes wasted...

Hopefully this site is not recorded as 16bit characters, otherwise the above just becomes a crime!

Infernus

11th August 2005 - 02:14 AM

I clearly admit to not being smart enough to argue either point. I don't think Bush is perfect, but I do believe he believes he's doing the right thing.

The case for creation is here creationscience.com/onlinebook If you are a bold and brilliant athiestic apologist or evolution apologist please see the written debate challenge on this website. Anyone else may continue to live in their nice little fantasy world whether it be one created by nothing or one created by God.

P.S. even if you're not a Jesus loving kind of person it's still fun and educational to read up on the other sides opinion.

J. Wensveen

11th August 2005 - 08:34 AM

QUOTE

J. Wensveen,

All things are possible right? There might be many logical ways that the multiple complex systems could have developed individually and stays for the next part to develope, become becoming one functioning super-system. God is one such possiblity
 Yes, all things are possible. That is why the belief I have is also possible.

I believe in God, I belief that he created the Universe and that he created us humans in His image. But I also belief he took his time, He didn't snap his fingers and a complete Universe was there out of nothing. My belief is that he guided our creation by guiding evolution. Selecting favorite strands, choosing what steps to take until he found a vessel walking around that He deemed worthy to give a Soul.

The Human Soul is Gods creation, our earthly vessel is just something he selected from a numerous amount of choices. It is our intelligence and curiosity and free will that are what makes us God's Image. We are God's Children, created in His image, and children grow up to become adults like their Father.

Insyght

11th August 2005 - 04:48 PM

QUOTE

I believe in God, I belief that he created the Universe and that he created us humans in His image. But I also belief he took his time, He didn't snap his fingers and a complete Universe was there out of nothing. My belief is that he guided our creation by guiding evolution. Selecting favorite strands, choosing what steps to take until he found a vessel walking around that He deemed worthy to give a Soul.

The Human Soul is Gods creation, our earthly vessel is just something he selected from a numerous amount of choices. It is our intelligence and curiosity and free will that are what makes us God's Image. We are God's Children, created in His image, and children grow up to become adults like their Father.
 You surprise me. Yes, you are very right. As i mention far earlier in this thread - somewhat, scripture only tells us that God created life... it did not say how. Really it would be presumptousness on the part of anyone to say that God created us like this or like that. So I agree with you totally.

Mind you, if one is a Christian, then they have to reconsile the creation of Eve. Who was created from Adams rib, WHILST he slept. No such account exists for the animals, so I have no problem with animal evolution.

With humans there is something different which must have taken place. Somehow, some more direct action was taken with us.

I guess it all comes down to how your read that account in Genesis. Did God REALLY put Adam to sleep and remove a rib? If not, why was it penned?

Guest

12th August 2005 - 03:46 AM

This is the vision science guy again. My apologies for reading the recent replies and losing track...

I'm not an atheist. But I do have two points. Below I'll speak as if I'm a strong Christian.

1. Evolution usually works very slowly. A mutation occurs. If it's innocuous, nothing happens. If it's terrible, that animal/plant and its offspring may have greater odds of dying and taking the bad mutation with them. If many of the animals die, but the mutation enabled those with the mutation to have better odds of surviving, natural selection occurs. The survivors have offspring; the others don't. For this to work, you need a very hostile environment and/or strong competition (both of which are arguably present in the wild).

I just reiterate this because people often lose track of the fact that there frankly ISN'T much designing in evolution. Rather, chance, birth, death, and probabilities matter. Moreover, we don't lose mutations or features that don't have adverse effects on us. It's very messy.

Evaluating our bodies as perfect or imperfect, is just that, an evaluation.

2. I like to think God made us inquisitive and (many of us) logical for a reason. There are allegories in the Bible. Humans wrote and re-wrote the book AFTER the events took place.

Did God say... "Make a book and be sure to take your time in so doing. Then tell everyone that's the end of it, and only things written in the book count. I'm a literalist and have no gift for metaphor, so take it all literally. I do plan on managing the world after the book is published, but do your best to ignore all of the more subtle ways that I will comunicate with you. If you start using your brains, realize that I designed your 'common sense' to be flawed. God, out!" ?

And is the Bible IT? Does God not communicate with us today?

Didn't God intend for science (i.e., reason) to play such a big role in our lives? The use of reason is so pervasive that surely it would be part of a grand plan, right?

Should we ignore our talents of inference and logic?

If God gave us common sense, perhaps it was to uncover greater truths while God isn't visiting us in a human form. Give him some credit and let us be ourselves (provided we're ethical). Isn't that what he obviously intended?

Guest_Neurohacker

12th August 2005 - 04:10 AM

learning through repetition or what it realy is (brain washing through repetition)
thats how Toilet training a Human is done.
thats how what they call God was Invented
Sincerely Yours,
Neurohacker@gmail.com
(.~.)
--oOO--(_)--OOo--

Ryver

12th August 2005 - 05:54 AM

While I am a Christian, I believe you are correct in your hypothesis that God gave us common sense, logic, and other mental faculties for a reason, and that, yes, they are part of a grand design. If we choose to ignore these abilities, and the information we obtain through their use, we are inviting disaster through ignorance. Maybe, with some luck and divine intervention, we'll be able to overcome our current state of unknowing, and enjoy the blessing of life.

whoisJC

12th August 2005 - 06:02 AM

QUOTE

Posted on Aug 12 2005, 03:46 AM
...
And is the Bible IT? Does God not communicate with us today?
...
 Has anyone here ever heard what they believed to be God speaking to them?

I had a crazy experience along this line.

My wife and I were told that we would never have children by several well educated doctors and many tests.

Anyway, a couple of years later I was lying in bed one night wide awake and I heard a voice say "Wendy's pregnant." I woke her up and said "guess what, your pregnant!" She politely said shut-up and go to sleep.

Well through the next two weeks she showed signs of a typical pregnancy and I finally convinced her to take a test. Well guess what it was positive! In fact the doctors estimated the date of conception and it was the date I heard that voice.

How does one even begin to explain that?

SA

J. Wensveen

12th August 2005 - 07:29 AM

QUOTE

Mind you, if one is a Christian, then they have to reconsile the creation of Eve. Who was created from Adams rib, WHILST he slept. No such account exists for the animals, so I have no problem with animal evolution.

 Well, Genesis is from the Oldest Jewish scriptures. And though they are nice, but after when Jezus came, these scriptures were just that, texts, something to look at and learn from, but not the rule of God, because Jezus's message and teachings outdated them.

Besides, did one of the Children of Adam and Eve suddenly invented writing and write down their parents story? Or was it told through vocal record over years? And how was the story told After the Fall of Babel, when all languages spoken changed? hard to keep vocal records going, even harder to keep script going.

So, no. I do not believe in the Eva from Adams rib story.

For the ID believers, if teaching in school starts to happen, The movie with this scene is a nice example:

Insyght

12th August 2005 - 03:36 PM

QUOTE

Guest

12th August 2005 - 03:46 PM

And since has when BUSH made a senseable decision?Forcing this into our public schools is a decision much like the rest of the rediculous ones he's made.

NekstBestThing@Gmail.com

Landwand Spacorn

12th August 2005 - 04:10 PM

Bush endorses Creation Science

solidspin

12th August 2005 - 05:23 PM

whoisJC -

QUOTE (whoisJC+Aug 12 2005, 06:02 AM)

Has anyone here ever heard what they believed to be God speaking to them?

I had a crazy experience along this line.

My wife and I were told that we would never have children by several well educated doctors and many tests.

Anyway, a couple of years later I was lying in bed one night wide awake and I heard a voice say "Wendy's pregnant." I woke her up and said "guess what, your pregnant!" She politely said shut-up and go to sleep.

Well through the next two weeks she showed signs of a typical pregnancy and I finally convinced her to take a test. Well guess what it was positive! In fact the doctors estimated the date of conception and it was the date I heard that voice.

How does one even begin to explain that?

SA

It's rather easy to explain it. You likely had a voltage issue (perhaps a petit-mal seizure) in a region of your brain about 2 1/2 inches straight behind your forehead and about 1/2 up from your eyebrow. It's just superior to the shelf your brain sits on called the Sulla Turcica or "turkish saddle".

Neuroscientists somewhat recently discovered this region kind of accidentally. Turns out that "visions" by clergy, nuns, buddhist monks, imams, ALLLLLLLL occur in this specific region.

Now, think about this. While I am happy your wife got pregnant, it could have been something as stupid as her changing the laundry detergent or you wearing a different type of underwear.

PLEASE REALIZE that over 60% of all conceptions end in abortion due to the failure of an enzyme called E3 (the work for which garnered the researchers a Nobel prize in biochemistry). Think about that....more embryoes throughout human history have spontaneously aborted than people have been born.

Insyght

12th August 2005 - 05:42 PM

Solidspin,

You are a lab person right?

You ever seen CSI, where they shine the light on something and sperm shines up blue, or they put something on what they thinking is blood and it changes color... and they are like "Hmm blood, looks like we have our crime scene".

Is that real!?

Just curious

I can say for one, that their fantasticly advanced image magnifiers that can take a 4 pixel image and scale it up to a full 800x800 with all hidden detail is a load of boll!

Your reply to WhoisJC, is a classic proof that such an experience can only prove God to the individual concerned - and you know what? That is all that really matters anyway.

lCine7ic

12th August 2005 - 06:19 PM

QUOTE (Jack+Aug 5 2005, 11:56 AM)

QUOTE (lizardracer+Aug 5 2005, 04:39 AM)

http://www.physorg.com/news5618.html

In sync with the President I purpose that along with Intelligent Design we should teach our children Alchemy and as legitimate alternative to Chemistry and Black Magic as an alternative to Physics. After all since we can"t explain all aspects of either subject and our knowledge of both are somewhat spotty my above sugestions are valid alternatives.

Excellent point, and as far as I am concerned the end of the argument. The only "evidence" I have heard supporting ID is that there are gaps in our knowledge of evolution--"Well, how do you explain X? You can't? Ah, well that must mean God did it!"

And as far as the "theory" of ID goes, that is a little optimistic in my opinion. I would grant them "hypothesis" at best, especially when you consider the other scientific theories out there. If they can find as much evidence (and that means hard evidence...not "common sense" arguments they put forth) for their ideas as we have for the "theory" of general relativity I would be happy to put ID in the textbooks. Theory is not just a word...it has certain criteria that must be met, and one of those criteria is certainly NOT finding holes in competing theories. Those holes or inconsistencies are where you start your own hypothesizing.

How do you explain X? Good point. This is the what a Creationist asks a "Scientist"--but the Scientist won't acknowledge that the X he needs to explain is the subset of EVERY MAJOR "EVOLUTIONARY" change.

Some of X's elements, x, which this Creationist requests a "Scientist" to explain:

x0 - Life from lack of life | Common Scientific answer: Primordial Ooze/Lightening strike or some other high energy catalyst -- testible? No. Why? Primordial ooze, other than the Gak-like substance that used to come with some Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, doesn't exist. Valid Theory? No.

Just create a living cell already! It's not much to ask--unless you admit it is impossible.

x1 - Created/Forced mutualism between multiple differing single-cellular lifeforms resulting in a Singular Complex Life (Many different types of many cells), such as ourselves, or even a mite. I mean if we are here b/c of this, and all other forms of life as well, then the odds of it happening under controlled situations (in a lab) would seem to be somewhat likely seeing how it has happened for billions of years randomly. Force Complex Life from multiple differing single cells Testible? No.

x2 - Human formation. a single sperm w/ genetic code meets a single egg w/ genetic code. The result is a zygote w/ the combined genetic code. This seems true. This "SINGLE" zygote replicates into many generic cells--ALL containing the new DNA code--the combined sperm/egg code. Tell me, what dictates generic cell A to turn into a neuron, generic cell B to turn into a muscle (heart) cell, generic cell © to turn into bone, etc. They ALL have the same information (from the beginning).

=====What lies below will play on emotion, but it doesn't make it false=====
=============Select the text between the lines to read============
Does it really take something as amazing as an offspring in creation to humble man's pride enough to realize that this whole process really is "The Miracle of Life". Cheesy? Then the first/next time you see your kid, look her/him in the face and tell yourself that s/he is the result of a chaotic random process--nothing more. Think it to yourself and I'm positive you will immidiately recant the thought, in shame.
=============Select the text between the lines to read============
=====What lies above will play on emotion, but it doesn't make it false=====

x3 - Transitional species between invertibrates/vertibrates. Testible? No.

x4 - Transitional species (or series) from whatever to feathered species. Testible? No.

x5 - Please explain how a "million/billion+" year old fossil can indicate skin color, life factors (such as hunting in packs, dominate males, or mating rituals, etc.) On a side note, please indicate how these conclusions made are testible, or the justification of them (if not testible) being taught in schools.

x6 - Please explain the logical reason and rational behind such statements like "we are descendents from the same originators as the jellyfish b/c we share similar code" when clearly the only attributes we share are we are alive and mortal. Further explain why patterns between two distant species' genetic code MUST be significant when their are clearly only 4 different combinations that can occur w/in the DNA structure.

x7 - For evolution to have the amount of time (billions of years) to get to where we are, the universe must be at least the age of the solar system. The O-so-Popular Big-Bang theory, often the sibling counterpart of macro-evolution, almost always is accredited with the explanation of the universe's age. Please explain why fundamental premises that the Big bang rides on:
- Dark Matter
- Dark Energy
- Superstrings

Are these most certainly un-observed phenomena testible? No. Are they necessary for the big bang? yes. is the big bang a valid theory? Only if you're too proud/stubburn to see the light.

It is not that I want to see Creation Science IN the classrooms--it's that I want to see evolution OUT. WHY must we even discuss the origins of life in school. Being a practicing Christian, I can still acknowledge that the ONLY completely unbiased stand-point is leave the faith/beliefs to the parents to teach or for personal discussions with friends--not up to the education system--that is UNLESS YOU PURSUE IT AS A DEGREE. Governmental mandated teaching of evolution is just as inappropriate in our culturely diverse world as mandated teaching of ANY religious belief.

If I'm wrong about this, then tell me what can be scientifically accomplished by any theist/athiest/agnostic perception of history. If we could determine that the world was less than 10,000 years old, or more than 8 billion--WHAT MORE COULD WE accomplish? If we could determine that we came from a creator, or we came from nothing and are only by chance--what could we do differently? Certainly not create a new life from nothing, or we already would have taken the tiniest first step; nor could we force a creator or whatever to take action. Whatever past has been, it's out of our control. We should not waste resources on determining the origins of life but let it be a personal/family/friend self-finding/establishing experience. Governmentally funded research grants and allocated time in order to prove people right or wrong is WASTE and should be shamed/frowned upon. We should only seek to improve the Quality of Life here on Earth (undoubtedly a gift, be it chance or from a higher power). Leave our faith/beliefs or whatever out of the classroom; yet keep these topics open for peronal discussion with friends/family willing to listen as well as share their thoughts.

We can only scientifically observe what is--relationships, interactions. We can only make use of testible scientific hypothesis (chemistry, biology, physics, psychology).

Macro-Evolution isn't a science, it's--it's a perception of history. Faith is as well. Whichever is right or wrong, it (as history) belongs no more in the domain of science than a past presidential election, a vacation to the Bahamas or whatever. Let Science be science in the schools--let us not bring in personal beliefs and speculation.

solidspin

12th August 2005 - 06:24 PM

Insyght -

Yes, I'm a "lab person" - but not forensics. I do research on nuclear environments of compounds in the solid state. The cpd they use is marketed as "luminol" and yes, that's true, but you're right, the resolution and the ability s fantasy.

Remember, Insyght - I don't give two sh&ts about debating ID v. Evolution. We can debate all we want. My goal is to convince IDers that not one damn dime of my tax money is to be spent on ID crap. Debate all we want, fine.

Remember, evolution is the proven model ad nauseam - ID is kawfeetawk, since it will never be proven. IDers need to respect Evo opinion, since Evolution is what is fundable, due to proof. So, talk about it, but at the end of the day, spend the tax dollars on Evo until ID can be proven -

Which, by definition, ID will never be proven.

- gleefully spinning solids.

lCine7ic

12th August 2005 - 06:30 PM

QUOTE (solidspin+Aug 12 2005, 05:23 PM)

PLEASE REALIZE that over 60% of all conceptions end in abortion due to the failure of an enzyme called E3 (the work for which garnered the researchers a Nobel prize in biochemistry). Think about that....more embryoes throughout human history have spontaneously aborted than people have been born.

SolidSpin. I will question every post I choose to read of yours, as I will doubt it even being worth my time. How could anyone expect to be taken seriously when talking about science, requiring extreme amounts of logic and causal understanding, if one can't even foresee the potential consequences of a f*cked up a comment like the one you made--especially for a couple who was told prior that they couldn't have kids. Man, I hope for your sake and theirs that that child will be healthy and grow up fine. And I hope you grow up too.

Justavian

12th August 2005 - 07:09 PM

QUOTE

You ever seen CSI, where they shine the light on something and sperm shines up blue, or they put something on what they thinking is blood and it changes color... and they are like "Hmm blood, looks like we have our crime scene".

Is that real!?
 It does exist - it's called luminol. Though i haven't seen the show to tell you if what they're doing is realistic...

solidspin

12th August 2005 - 07:31 PM

ICine7ic -

You mustn't be able to read. Let me explain again. The high rate of spontaneous abortion is due to an enzyme error, E3 - yet another reason why ID makes no sense, if you think for a moment, which you're not doing.

Your obtuse comment didn't even explain what you found so fkd up about my post. I will restate that I am happy for them, but that his silly attribution to G_d is more likely some serendipitous change in a variable that they never even possibly considered. I don't think my post was offensive in the least - in fact I congratulated them on the conception.

I guess I'm not nearly as biased and insipid as you about specific postings, as I read all postings, giving all of them the considered thought they deserve. Perhaps you're just afraid of science.

I obviously clash w/ Insyght and whoisJC due to their positions on the passability of ID and Creationism, but it's not like I won't read them. Your clearly stated bias tells me you don't think like a scientist.

Guest

12th August 2005 - 11:28 PM

QUOTE (lCine7ic+Aug 12 2005, 06:19 PM)

QUOTE (Jack+Aug 5 2005, 11:56 AM)

QUOTE (lizardracer+Aug 5 2005, 04:39 AM)

And I suppose an omniscient, omnipotent being that looks like a human and can manipulate the universe in ways that defy logic and all known physcial laws is MORE plausible (and is testable). And I suppose every other God written and spoken about 2000 years ago DOES NOT exist. Just yours... because you say so.

An hypothesis is not a weak form of a theory. It's a prediction about data, given specific conditions, and is derived from a theory.

We can't directly observe the behaviors of anyone that is dead.

So I suppose it's merely a matter of faith then, that they existed. I mean sure, we have evidence that they probably existed, but we can't directly test that idea in an experiment.

So my vote is to excise the teaching of history as well (including Chistianity, because we CERTAINLY can't test the claims it makes).

EVOLUTION IS NOT A WEAK THEORY.

ID IS NOT ON PAR WITH EVOLUTION.

Man, some of you just don't get evolution like some people just don't get math.

NidStyles

13th August 2005 - 08:52 AM

I like that little saying. Some don't get evolution, like some don't get math.

IAM

13th August 2005 - 11:30 AM

It is my belief that ALL superstitious belief evolves from a lack of knowledge, that it, necessarily, leads to the destruction of our civilization and, if the IDers have their way, the destruction of our planet for all "higher" (read "more complex") life-forms. History has proven , over and over and over again that religious fundamentalism leads to destruction. Some, say the Taliban for instance, even believe that it is their god-given duty to eliminate science from the face of the planet, that god created the universe and that the answers we are seeking are all provided for us, conveniently, in a single book. There is no need for any other. For those of us who think that this explanation is far too simple, we shall surely die at the hands of the "religious right" this is their wish and their direction. Kill all who oppose "the word". It's not just the Taliban, our own western-world religious fruit-bars have been trying to get the same kind of government here! They call the ID vs. Darwin escapade "the wedge". A "think-tank" designed plan to eliminate evolutionary science from our schools, and eventually all logical thought from our civilization. They are not evil, they just wish to return to "simpler" days gone by. Back to the "good old days". I suggest that their memory is at fault, here. The "old days" were not very good for most of us. As far as teaching "Intelligent Design" in the science classes, LOL, go ahead! I'm convinced that it can only result in more students leaving "the relgious flock". When truly studied, and properly compared, more students would be inclined to follow the logical science rather than superstition. It was, for me, the total lack of logical explanation that drove me from my religious upbringing. Where did Cain get his wife?, Which day did god create man-kind?, did he create man and woman at the same time? Was that before or after he created the animals? Why does God enjoy so much the killing and sacrifice of innocent animals? The questions never end. From one book of the bible to the next there is no continuity, no logic, and no reasoning. Surely educated people can distinguish fact from fancy. I did, in spite of my family's attempts.

J. Wensveen

13th August 2005 - 12:18 PM

QUOTE (Insyght+Aug 12 2005, 03:36 PM)

QUOTE

no. I do not believe in the Eva from Adams rib story.

 Ok, appreciate that. So you only go by the law of Christ? (Matt, Mark, Luke and John documented)

Do you follow the books that follow? (from Acts thou Revelation) or do you consider them not to by a part of the canon also? The revelations and letters are just that, Interpretations by Apostels of teachings they never fully understood. Along with the formation of a religious community. Some messages are interesting and worth considering, others are clearly adaptations to local structure.

I am more interested nowadays in the Gnostic gospels, those gospels that did not make it in the male dominated church structure founded by Peter and Paul. After all, the First concily that decided the current gospels and books as shown in the bible threw away alot of teachings.

The Comedia Divine, from Dante might as wel be true. And the Verses written down by Mohammed might as wel be true also. But those messages go against the very nature of what I consider as being Right.

Evolution feels right. You just have to look around you at the people around you. Different faces, hair colors, shapes, eye colors. Those are clear examples of Genetic drift, as in evolution, those are all mutations, mutations that at this time do not affect the species much, so they are not prime selective items, and they are still counted as the same species. Those changes are not yet that far that people with these different mutations can not breed. At least as far as we know. Alot of people can not get children together. I know of several that could not have children together, after a decade of trying they broke up their relation over it. Now both are remarried and Both have Children of their own with their other partner.

Bookwench

13th August 2005 - 09:57 PM

"Most people who are serious about science recognize that rationality and the claims of evolution from a simple beginning are two different things."

I doubt this statement. For it to be a true and accurate representation of your knowledge you would have had to get a random sampling of people and test them, to determine who was "serious about science". I propose such a test should be administered by a third and neutral party consisting entirely of bhuddists. Then, when you had seperated those who were serious about science from those who were just kidding around, you would have to question them on their feelings about rationality and the claims of evolution.... Have you done this?

Basically, I believe that IF there is a god as I was taught as a child, that god would be the sort who would set a simple collection of rules, drop a seed into it and NOT INTERFERE afterwards. I find the concept of a god who would be able to have all this stuff - Life, the Universe and Everything - happen because said god did a little preplanning, versus having to make all sorts of little corrections all the time - far more impressive. But that's just me and I could be wrong.

If I'm right though, scientists are the closest to god - because they study the universe, the laws that govern everything. They study the mind of god through the works. Not imposing their own preconceptions onto it, just accepting things as they are - that's real faith. Imposters try to make the results come out to suit themselves, because they do not have faith - they are afraid, and so try and impose controll onto things. Cheat the results. Betray themselves and their faith.

So... I believe we evolved. A case of matter and energy interacting with a simple set of rules, and we grew are a result. You're both right: God had a hand in it but his hand was only as the writer of the rules we live by, and I'm not talking about the ten commandments. I think god is far stranger than we can possibly concieve, and all we can do is study the universe with clear eyes and open hearts. Honestly, and with a sense of wonder for all we learn.

Complexity can arise from simple set-ups with simple pieces: it's all in the rules that the simple structures interact by. Those rules are where the complexity comes from. Intangable, but unbreakable. How many permutations are there for combining your simplest elements?

enigma

14th August 2005 - 02:21 AM

discussions about science and religion never get anyone anywhere... people are all over the board on their beliefs... some think science is law while others think God is... i guess we'll never really know... but can't you believe in both? that there is such a thing as evolution, but that way in the beginning it was due to God? (though that does sound like it's bordering on Deism, oh well)

Montec

15th August 2005 - 01:14 AM

I have read this thread (over the last couple of weeks) and don't remember any discusion over the fact that mutations (ie genetic drift) increase within a limited gene pool.

If catastrophic events trigger genetic drift then, statistacally speaking, no one will ever find fossilized evidence of major branching in the evolutionary tree do to a limited number of transitional entities. Blind luck will play a major role in there discovery.

I also state as a fact that it is easy to alter genetic code. I give as examples dogs, cats, horses, bovine, swine, poultry, carrots, corn, wheat, rice, etc. You get the picture. All it takes is time and a little know-how.

Vicariance is the scientific term to describe genitic drift within a species isolated by barriers. ie the two or more groups are the same species but they undergo genetic drift due to thier isolation.

Therefore, if a species survives a catastrophic event and has no competition for natural food-stuffs (only survivers) then genetic drift will occure to take advantage of all possible resources.

Competition is the essence of evolution. (Quote from the writings of David W. Hinze Jr.)

Jerry Duke

15th August 2005 - 03:39 PM

QUOTE (Adrian Wake+Aug 9 2005, 02:05 PM)

WHEN I CAN'T UNDERSTAND

Lord, there’s a lot of things, I just don’t understand.
Lord, there’s a lot of things I find, I just can’t answer man.
They asked me where God came from, How Adam fell in sin?
They asked me why should Jesus die, For wicked, sinful men?
They asked me how Cain got his wife from such a few on earth?
They asked me how God’s Spirit came, to give us the New Birth?

My heart was filled with anguish when I could not answer men,
The devil said, God never was, man didn’t fall in sin.
That Jesus death upon the cross, was a fanatic’s deed,
That for the sins of wicked man, He did not die and bleed.
That Cain took him a model wife from a big fuzzy ape,
And then evolved, evolved again, our kind of men to make.

I looked into the face of Christ, And He did answer me,
“They do not ask sincerely child, They do not want to see,
They just want to confuse you, so you won't believe in Me.
Don’t try to answer questions that gender doubt and strife,
It really does not matter just where Cain got his wife.
Just tell them of the Saviour, how He died for sinful men,

And in your heart the witness lies that you are born. Again."
We cannot see the spirit come, with God’s Amazing Grace,
We only know God’s Word declares, “The Just shall live by Faith.”
So if men never use their heart, and only use their mind,
The Way to Heaven, through Christ to God
I'm ‘fraid they’ll never find.

But in that glorious Daybreak, In that City fair and bright,
He’ll wipe away our teardrops, and make the dark things light.

By: Queen Esther

someirishguy

15th August 2005 - 04:54 PM

guys i think we all need to relax and stop worrying about something we will not figure out in this lifetime.... sure in a few years we will all get the answers we want, good or bad

just stop fighting over something that in the end will only matter in the end... live a good life, be happy, make those you love happy and if there is a god how can he fault you when you die if you did these things, if there isnt then people will remember you as a nice kind person, and you'll be missed......and sure all that good living is bound to make you a nice healthy meal for the worms

Jerry Duke

15th August 2005 - 05:06 PM

QUOTE (Adrian Wake+Aug 9 2005, 02:05 PM)

I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. (Ecclesiastes 9:11)

Chance events are a subset of the universe. The probability that the Creator of the universe is a product of chance is less than the probability that the universe is a product of chance. Both probabilities go to zero.

LORD, thou hast been our dwelling place in all generations. Before the mountains were brought forth, or ever thou hadst formed the earth and the world, even from everlasting to everlasting, thou art God. Thou turnest man to destruction; and sayest, Return, ye children of men. For a thousand years in thy sight are but as yesterday when it is past, and as a watch in the night. Thou carriest them away as with a flood; they are as a sleep: in the morning they are like grass which groweth up. In the morning it flourisheth, and groweth up; in the evening it is cut down, and withereth. For we are consumed by thine anger, and by thy wrath are we troubled. Thou hast set our iniquities before thee, our secret sins in the light of thy countenance. For all our days are passed away in thy wrath: we spend our years as a tale that is told. The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away. Who knoweth the power of thine anger? even according to thy fear, so is thy wrath. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom. Return, O LORD, how long? and let it repent thee concerning thy servants. O satisfy us early with thy mercy; that we may rejoice and be glad all our days. Make us glad according to the days wherein thou hast afflicted us, and the years wherein we have seen evil. Let thy work appear unto thy servants, and thy glory unto their children. And let the beauty of the LORD our God be upon us: and establish thou the work of our hands upon us; yea, the work of our hands establish thou it. (Psalm 90)

Jerry Duke

15th August 2005 - 05:15 PM

QUOTE (someirishguy+Aug 15 2005, 04:54 PM)

... if there is a god how can he fault you when you die ...

Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory, Even us, whom he hath called, not of the Jews only, but also of the Gentiles? (Romans 9:19-24)

Jerry Duke

15th August 2005 - 05:32 PM

QUOTE (Guest+Aug 8 2005, 06:19 AM)

...Science and religion are completely separate...

God invites mankind to reason.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. (Isaiah 1:18)

This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting. (I Timothy 1:15-16)

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen. (I Timothy 6:20-21)

But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes. And the servant of the Lord must not strive; but be gentle unto all men, apt to teach, patient, In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth; And that they may recover themselves out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him at his will. (II Timothy 2:23-26)

False science typified by Darwinism has held back the advance of real science by more than 100 years. (see "Science as Mythology" by Daniel Boorstin, Science Digest, December 1984 p. 82)

Jerry Duke

15th August 2005 - 06:25 PM

QUOTE (Guest_Mike+Aug 9 2005, 01:26 PM)

I'm a perceptual scientist ...development of our perceptual systems was very possible via mutation and natural selection. ...

Is the equation which defines this process something you can share with us?

Darklingknight

15th August 2005 - 07:31 PM

What is the underlying "SCIENCE" of intelligent design? Don't tell me that the science of ID is the poking of holes in the "normal"ly accepted theories of mainstream science. Yes there might have been something that created the first life on earth but why would it have had to also come along and altered certain creatures by adding complexity? I don't see anyone asking the question of why the intelligent designer would go about doing this. We use the theory of evolution to try and prove the body of knowledge we have is true and that some of those scientific studies performed have valid reasons for crossing over from mouse to human. Don't tell me that just because the science is flawed or that the scientists are to lazy to go out trying to prove everything from beginning to end you feel that science is false.

It has always been accepted that those things that are repeatably provable are true until they are proven false and then there is a new propostion put forth. I we are to accept ID as truth, which I feel must be done to teach it to our children, we are going to have to fix that foundation upon which science and the world rests upon. If we are to start asking questions like ID proposes are science then why not start to ask all the questions instead of holding back and trying to slowly understand the complexity of the universe. Why not ask if your neighbor isn't really one of those intelligent designers, he's a little strange and never seems to come out during the day. Why does ID stop once the think they have proven that there was a creator/ Why don't they try to prove what created our creator or the reasons for our creators creating us? Maybe they want a weapon to use agianst some species or they have created us in their image to harvest our organs.

From my postion it appears that ID has to much in common with science fiction, the type that I like to read, you know the cheezy kind like the Area 51 series. There needs to be a systematic way that IDer's go about trying to prove their "theory" instead of pointing out holes in evolution or our understanding of a subject. Science for all it's being "mature" still doesn't understand the basic since we are relying on 100 year old assumptions that prove the original theoy partially correct so that the theory changes but is still named the same.

Science is a dogma and it holds on to it's precious theories just as much as any religion. Most people find it hard to accept the fact that someday, if nanotechnology ever advances far enough, that we will be synthezing milk in a box instead of having a cow produce the milk for us. It defies our perception of what is "natural" and acceptable so they tell me it won't happen. But what is natural anyway but those things we have come to accept as truths. Someday our descendents will know far different "truths" than we do and we would revile them for those things they have done that we believe are wrong. Science divorced from humanity would accomplish wonders in a short span of time yet I hope no one ever tries this since the cost would be very high since nothing would be sacred from stem cells in fetuses to the chemicals in a fully grown human brain.

Maybe neither evolution or ID should be taught in schools since both are in a way just justifications for a system of belief. It just happens to be that evolutionist's have away to prove their beliefs whereas IDer's rely on pure speculation and personal interpretation of the data at hand. Or maybe I'm just to biased, who knows.

blue42

15th August 2005 - 08:01 PM

Now how could have this happend by chance?

Read on: http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articl...ion=view&ID=105

Darklingknight

15th August 2005 - 08:08 PM

That article really seems to pose the question:

What is the defining characteristics of life?

and the answer.

When I say answer I don't mean a self serving or acceptable answer but the real ful answer that will scare some and cause others to be sceptacle.

MDT

15th August 2005 - 08:58 PM

I think that it is useful to teach both ID and evolution in schools. Doesn't that give the students a chance to reason, compare, and learn how to make well informed choices. These are our future scientists who need to keep an open mind, to even marginal data, so they can be more innovative. Maybe the truth lies is somewhere in the middle.

For example, evolutionary theory is too dependant to the randomness of statistics. This same fuzzy math, makes chloresterol good one day and bad next. Statistics makes an excellent smoke screen to hind lack of rational understanding of transition phenomena. Evolution theory essentially uses a God of randomness, to support a logical theory.

On the other hand, ID relies a littlle too heavily on God doing everything, while being very thin on the details. But at least its God is one of order, who is so effecient that he does not constantly needs to rely on a statistical margin of error make up for his lack of creation skills. Personally, I prefer someone for the job efficient and skilled rather than someone who all thumbs, wears a blindfold ,and only works every now and then.

ID is too heavily dependant on faith to fill in all the details. Science at least is not afraid to examine the details of creation. But doesn't science also teach things that are based on faith. Cosmology is a good example. None of the theories are proveable, yet we teach them in school because we have reasonable faith that we are getting closer to the truth. Shouldn't the truth be singular. In an orderred universe yes, but the God of randomness lets anything become possible, including a variety of truthes, half truthes and illusions about one phenomena.

If science has reached the truth, there should be nothing left to do. We are still learning and evolving our understanding of life and the universe. Does that means that science is currently teaching half baked truth, that one must accept with blind faith as being absolute truth, until a better half baked truth comes along to replace it. Viva la God of randomness who makes anything possible.

I believe the truth lies somwhere between ID and evoluton. I like the ordered God of ID better than the random God of the Evoluton, the former is a harder worker and has better logical skills. But I like the rational, don't be afraid to look at the details approach of evolution, better than the blind faith skimpy on the details approach of creation. Adding these two together, we get ordered logical evolution. That is what I hope the next generation gets out of being able to learn both approaches together.

Jerry Duke

16th August 2005 - 01:56 PM

QUOTE (Darklingknight+Aug 15 2005, 08:08 PM)

Search
It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter. (Proverbs 25:2)

God is light
This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth: But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin. If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us. (I John 1:5-10)

Jerry Duke

16th August 2005 - 04:07 PM

QUOTE (MDT+Aug 15 2005, 08:58 PM)

... relies a littlle too heavily on God doing everything ...

I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. (John 15:5)

If we rely on "God did it" as a stock answer for everything, the body of knowledge is not increased. If we rely on the knowledge that God is the Creator, Preserver and Governor of the universe, we are moving in the right direction.

Consider the problem of optical isomers. Random chemical processes produce racemization. The evolution model cannot produce the answer, because evolution is based on the false assumption of the spontaneous generation of life from inanimate matter. Evolution leads logically to racemization. In living creatures, that means death.

If you start with the knowledge of God, you know that God is life and that he created all living things. God is also light; therefore, it is reasonable to assume that the extreme purity of optical isomers in living creatures is an essential quality of life. It speaks to the purpose of creation which is to bring honor and glory to Jesus Christ.

Human beings are subject to death because of a choice made by the first human being. Adam chose to bring death into the world, and each of us make similar choices. Ultimately, we either choose to be saved from death and enjoy everlasting life with God in Heaven or we choose to remain dead and suffer eternal damantion with the devil (the destroyer) in hell.

If you seek the truth with all your heart, you will find God and he will draw you to his Son Jesus Christ. If you repent of your sins and accept Jesus Christ as your Saviour, calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, he will save you.

Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning. (James 1:17)

When I got saved, I said eight words, "I reject Satan, and I accept Jesus Christ." When I repented of my life of sin and surrendered my heart to Jesus Christ, God saved me and revealed himself to me that he is my Father, I am going to Heaven for sure, and I am safe with him forever. God created a clean new heart in me which desires only to please him. Whereas before I was led about by the devil, now I follow Jesus Christ.

Getting saved is a repeatable experience. God is no respecter of persons. If repent of your sins, believe in your heart that God raised his Son Jesus Christ from the dead, confess with your mouth that Jesus Christ is Lord, and call upon the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, God will save you.

But what saith it? The word is nigh thee, even in thy mouth, and in thy heart: that is, the word of faith, which we preach; That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation. For the scripture saith, Whosoever believeth on him shall not be ashamed. For there is no difference between the Jew and the Greek: for the same Lord over all is rich unto all that call upon him. For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved. (Romans 10:8-13)

Facts

25th August 2005 - 02:56 PM

"Therefore, to understand the events and generalities of life's pathway, we must go beyond principles of evolutionary theory to a paleontological examination of the contingent pattern of life's history on our planet - the single actualized version among millions of plausible alternatives that happened not to occur. Such a view of life's history is highly contrary both to conventional deterministic models of Western science and to the deepest social traditions and psychological hopes of Western culture for a history culminating in humans as life's highest expression and intended planetary steward.

Science can, and does, strive to grasp nature's factuality, but all science is socially embedded, and all scientists record prevailing "certainties," however hard they may be aiming for pure objectivity. Darwin himself, in the closing lines of The Origin of Species, expressed Victorian social preference more than nature's record in writing: "As natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection." "

STEPHEN JAY GOULD teaches biology, geology and the history of science at Harvard University, where he has been on the faculty since 1967. He received an A.B. from Antioch College and a PhD. in paleontology from Columbia University. Well known for his popular scientific writings, in particular his monthly column in Natural History magazine, he is the author of 13 books.

Facts? fact is a word scientists use instead of God and then they say now shut up. If you want to say this or that happened inthe begginning- as far as the scientific method is concerned you have to be able to observe and repeat. science has carefully reformulated the definition of theory to be an untouchable idea. How many holes does it take for a theory to be no longer reputable. Science proves the possibility of God's existence by the simple fact that science cannot prove that He or it does not exist. It cannot be ruled out. Science is socially motivated and most certainly an ID is a reputable idea for the initial cause of the univers. Is there a cause an effect process in the universe? does evolution reasonably address this process or not? if so how? Science starts with Hypothesis so are we saying that we should eliminate all talk of hypothesis in the classroom or just the ones I like or you like? what about the implications of scientific theories? should we talk about about how science affects society? Science is ultimately based on faith. there is no doubt of that. That can be proven by reason. We trust that current theories are valid even though at any moment a new fact could reveal that Darwins evolutionary theory is completly false. By the way its not law. why not? any honest scientist would admit that science is a tool and has limits of it's observational discoveries. Who voted science as the ruler of fact? science changes with each generation proving previous theories as false so which scince should we beleive the science of today or tommorrow? Science is more than statements of facts and theories it involves a process and falable people who have intentions and beliefes of their own and those people are not always objective.

Guest

25th August 2005 - 03:41 PM

QUOTE

adoucette

29th August 2005 - 03:40 AM

QUOTE (Guest+Aug 25 2005, 03:41 PM)

That is a major reason- the the prevailing theories dont completely answer the question comepletely. This makes the theory irrational. its like an unfinished sentence.
If you propose an explaination of life including its begginnings you have to have a complete thought that answers the question in a rational way- ie consistent with its own presuppositions. Many people don't feel evolution is a complete answer. This is their claim that the theory should no longer be considered a theory or be altered or adjusted to reflect new evidence.

The theory of evolution deals with how species evolve.

It is not about how life started.

There is no THEORY of how life began.

There are a lot of HYPOTHESIS on this subject. ID could be considered one of these. Since ID is not falsifiable it can never become a THEORY, unless God is willing to be interviewed.

The only way ID could fit the EVIDENCE is if the Designer "kept his hand in" the ongoing process. In which case someone who believes in ID is simply saying that the process of NATURAL SELECTION is a purposeful act by an omnipresent God.

One would think He had more important things to do then keep tabs on every living thing on the planet and make the minute changes necessary for evolution to proceed as evidenced by the fossil record.

Arthur

SoLoved

29th August 2005 - 05:30 AM

Some say there are no theories on the subject of how life began - nothing could be further from the truth.

The evolutionist starts from the pre-supposition that the earth is billions of years old but cannot explain its origins. The theory involves their opinion of how organisms evolve.

Intelligent Design starts with the pre-supposition that life was created by an Intelligent Designer, Creator, or God. You are correct when you say this is not a theory but a non-falsifiable fact.

QUOTE

Quote by adoucette:
The theory of evolution deals with how species evolve.
It is not about how life started.
There is no THEORY of how life began.

Other posts in this forum (see other topics) have challenged you all to conduct your own personal experiment and get to know the God of the Bible.

I'm going to help you along by telling you about an interesting sermon. I hope you can follow along - it's a bit involved. The experiment is listed toward the end of the sermon.

This sermon was conducted by a Christian Missionary & Alliance Church Pastor on 8/28/05.

It is titled "The Supremacy of Christ". Truth is reality - truth is realized through Jesus Christ.

1. Start by reading Exodus 27:16 (old testament - for those who do not know this - the entire old testament is a testament to Jesus Christ - in other words - there is a story running through the old testament that when read in the light of the new testament - reveals Jesus Christ. For example - when God says in Genesis that the serpent shall strike your heel but you shall crush his head - he is talking about his son, Jesus Christ - this is in reference to Jesus dying on the cross (struck his heel) and then Jesus' victorious resurrection from the dead (crush his head)).

I hope you can follow this.

"The entrance of the enclosure shall be covered with a 20 cubit embroidered drape made of sky-blue, dark red, and crimson wool together with twisted linen. It shall have 4 pillars and 4 bases." (Exodus 27:16)

2. Then read Second Timothy 3:16 (This is to point out why we are studying Exodus 27:16)

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)

3. Exodus 27:16 describes in great detail how the tabernacle where God said He would dwell with His people, was to be built.
There were 12 tribes of Israel (compare - Jesus had 12 disciples), but only one entrance to the tabernacle (symbolizes only one way to God - compare -
"Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 14:6).

4. Why are the colors important? Colors were used to represent certain things:

Blue = represents the divine God
Red = servant, sacrifice
White = perfect humanity, purity, victory
Purple = King, Sovreignity

In the old testament:

When the tabernacle was complete there was only one entrance - all 12 tribes would go through the one way to be with God
When they saw the blue they would think of God
When they saw the red they would think of the animal sacrifice for their sins
When they saw the white they would remember that they were purified by the death of their animal sacrifice
When they saw purple this signified God's sovreignity

In the new testament:

Blue = When the resurrection was complete - there was made a way (the blue in the tabernacle entrance = Jesus) for all people to be with God.
Red = The red blood of Jesus provided the final, ultimate sacrifice for all of our sins.
White = Jesus is perfect humanity, pure and victorious.
Purple = Jesus the Christ is the Sovreign Lord, King, Supreme.

5. This wraps up the Supremacy of Christ. Colossians 1:15-20

He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
For in him were created all things in heaven and on earth, the visible and the invisible, whether thrones or dominions
or principalities or powers; all things were created through him and for him.
He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
He is the head of the body, the church.
He is the beginning, the firstborn from the dead, that in all things he himself might be preeminent.
For in him all the fullness was pleased to dwell,
and through him to reconcile all things for him, making peace by the blood of his cross (through him),
whether those on earth or those in heaven. (Colossians 1:15-20)

6. Did you know that Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, were all written using these representations? In other words,
each of the four gospels tells about Jesus using blue, red, white, and purple.

Matthew: Christ as King (blue)
Mark: Christ as Servant (red)
Luke: Christ as Man (white)
John: Christ as the Sovreign God (purple) (answers the question: Is Jesus Christ really the Son of God?)

7. Why four portraits (gospels) of Jesus? Jews needed to know Jesus fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies of Messiah/King.
Gentiles needed some Jewish cultural concepts explained. More importantly: we need a full picture of Jesus.
A Christian is more than a Bible thumper, viewing our many facets helps you better understand us.
Similarly, Jesus’ many facets — His heart, words, life, and mission — are all necessary to appreciating His true nature.
We must see Jesus as King (Matthew), the servant (Mark), like us - as man (Luke), and as sovreign God (John).

The moral of the story:
God didn't make no junk when he made you. He knew you in your mother's womb when he knit you together, He created you. He did not destroy you when He had the chance because He loves you.

If you really desire to know the truth then you must conduct a personal experiment. It involves you reading the Bible and then asking God to show you that He is real. If you can reduce your emotions to science then you will be able to understand how to complete the experiment.

If you laugh, criticize, refuse to believe, and in general be a half-empty instead of half-full kind of person, then you lose, you fail.

Now, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're not talking about this man:

user posted image

The perfect Gingerbread man -
cute, sweet and quiet, and if he annoys me I can bite his head off!

No, when we're talking about the perfect man - we're talking about this guy:

Are

you

ready

to

see

the

perfect

man

for

the

job?

user posted image

Just kidding. Well, sort of.

Have a great week,

SoLoved

adoucette

29th August 2005 - 04:17 PM

QUOTE (SoLoved+Aug 29 2005, 05:30 AM)

Do you understand the difference between a THEORY and a HYPOTHESIS?

There is a THEORY of EVOLUTION.

There is no THEORY of "the origination of life"

There are a number of Hypothesis for this, including creationism and ID.

Unfortunately, your "non-falsifiable fact" is based upon your BELIEF that the scriptures are factual. While not denying that the scriptures contain some factual information, most of the "facts" you refer to are not independently verifiable and thus can not be considered as a scientific fact. No matter how strongly you believe in them and even if you have your own "internal proof", this does not translate to proof that others need accept.

Arthur

Grumpy

30th August 2005 - 02:47 PM

soloved

QUOTE

Intelligent Design starts with the pre-supposition that life was created by an Intelligent Designer, Creator, or God. You are correct when you say this is not a theory but a non-falsifiable fact.

Any study which starts with a presupposition is not a science. You are correct, this is not a theory, it is an OPINION based on your superstition.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Intelligent Design starts with the pre-supposition that life was created by an Intelligent Designer, Creator, or God. You are correct when you say this is not a theory but a non-falsifiable fact.

Any study which starts with a presupposition is not a science. You are correct, this is not a theory, it is an OPINION based on your superstition.

The evolutionist starts from the pre-supposition that the earth is billions of years old but cannot explain its origins.

Evolutionists, as you call us, do not start with a presupposition that the Earth is billions of years old, we start with the KNOWLEDGW that the Earth formed 4.5 billion years ago by coalesing from the dust and gas left over from the formation of our sun. This KNOWLEDGE was developed by cosmologists and geologists and by astronomers studying the EVOLUTION of our universe and the stars therein. This has been as well explained as why water runs downhill and why the sky is blue.

QUOTE

Some say there are no theories on the subject of how life began - nothing could be further from the truth.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Some say there are no theories on the subject of how life began - nothing could be further from the truth.

It is the absolute TRUTH. There are precious few facts known about the beginnings of life on Earth. Scientists studying this subject have HYPOTHESES based on these few facts but THEORIES require a high level of TESTABLE, REPEATABLE and FALSIFIABLE evidence which has not yet been reached.

"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness" (2 Tim 3:16)

If you wish to teach a class in RIGHTEOUSNESS by all means do so. But RIGHTEOUSNESS is not SCIENCE. The Bible is not a science text book and by trying to use it for your own purposes you are taking the Lords name in vain, to use the true meaning of that phrase.

Grumpy

30th August 2005 - 03:07 PM

"What, me worry?"

Clarence Darrow

30th August 2005 - 03:42 PM

The first thing the nutjob ID proponents should do to validate their hypothesis is reject all the technology that GODLESS science has provided them. After all that science is founded on assumptions that contradict their own.

First if you long for the good ol days of old time religion, turn off the air conditioning, it functions by physical principles ( Laws of Thermodynamics) invalid in a 10,000 year old Creationist Universe. Then continue on to your automobile, medical care, and ultimately your computer.

Science collapses once certain key principles can not be utilised, so start off early by showing us how to live without them.

Possibly one negative effect of technical and scientific progress is the enabling of the abyssmally stupid to prosper and survive, pass on and multiply their abyssmally stupid genetic inheritance to the point where they can elect a leadership intellectually backward enough to commence another Dark Age. I blame Doctor Edward Jenner, his smallpox vaccine prevented the deaths of millions of English Fundamentalists that later became the core of the Bible Beaters that inflict their small mindedness on us today. Just think, that if the Fundies back then had their way and obstructed medical research like they are today with stem cells, not many of them would be around to inflict their idiocy on the world.

Don't pray in my school, I won't think in your church

adoucette

31st August 2005 - 03:57 AM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Aug 30 2005, 02:47 PM)

QUOTE

Some say there are no theories on the subject of how life began - nothing could be further from the truth.
 It is the absolute TRUTH. There are precious few facts known about the beginnings of life on Earth. Scientists studying this subject have HYPOTHESES based on these few facts but THEORIES require a high level of TESTABLE, REPEATABLE and FALSIFIABLE evidence which has not yet been reached.

Well put.

In fact if the scientists studying this were to actually create life based upon RNA or DNA, starting from just basic chemicals this STILL wouldn't be PROOF that this was how life began on earth.

Since life's beginning was an EVENT, there is hardly any chance at all that a THEORY of its origin will ever exist, since although we might be able to create the conditions for life to begin, it would not prove that this is the ONLY way life could have started.

Arthur

adoucette

31st August 2005 - 04:23 AM

I think that attacking Bush on this issue is wrong.

He is pouring money into education.

He did not say he supported teaching ID as a competing theory (as some have suggested)

What he did say was:

"scientific critiques of any theory should be a normal part of the science curriculum."

and in the Texas interview on the 8th he said:

Q: I wanted to ask you about the -- what seems to be a growing debate over evolution versus intelligent design. What are your personal views on that, and do you think both should be taught in public schools?

THE PRESIDENT: I think—as I said, harking back to my days as my governor—both you and Herman are doing a fine job of dragging me back to the past. (Laughter.) Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

Q: Both sides should be properly taught?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, people—so people can understand what the debate is about.

I think the key is PROPERLY TAUGHT.

Remember this would be taught by SCIENCE TEACHERS.

I think they would do an admirable job of teaching WHY Creationism and ID are NOT valid scientific theories and WHY Evolution is.

As this LONG set of threads show, the supporters of both are quite willing to use compelling "psuedo science" to support their positions (like the Mt St Helens sillyness) and to claim that the book of Genesis represents "Facts". Since schools normally only teach Darwinian Evolution, many of the impressionable youth don't retain enough of the scientific basis for this to rationally understand the failings of the ID/Creation pushers, which is why I think many fall for their slick sales pitch.

It seems to me that if I was a science teacher that I would definitely include ID and Creationism in my teaching of Evolution, but the end result would be my students would have a much better idea of what separates a SCIENTIFIC THEORY from a BELIEF as well as the gaping holes in Creationism and the lack of need for an external intelligence to account for evolution.

Arthur

Grumpy

31st August 2005 - 02:14 PM

QUOTE

Then, I said that, first of all, that decision should be made to local school districts, but I felt like both sides ought to be properly taught.

To adoucette

I too would not object to both sides being properly taught, however ID and CS are not sciences, they are religious viewpoints and should be taught in comparitive religion classes.(It's turtles, turtles all the way down.) A highschool science teacher has enough to do without having to fend off political pressures exerted by religious zealots intent that their view be taught as equivalent to the scientific view. Yes most science teachers could debunk thie religious nonsence but the political firestorm that followed would quickly occupy all of thier precious time even though it deserves to occupy none of it. An old Arabic proverb teaches that the only way to keep a smelly, obnoxious camel from occupying your tent is to keep his nose out of it. I wont give these Ludites the chance to stick thier nose in.

I do not attack Bush for this alone. As this is not a political forum I will refrain from ranting against Bush the appointed.(No I haven't forgotten 2000, never will)
Suffice it to say I (and many others) have ample reason to dispise him, his right wing croneys and fat cat friends. The main reason I cracked on him in this forum was to point out the inanities of soloved. Perfect man for the job my big ol' butt| I appologize if I have gored anyone elses ox.

As an aside: I have rebuked Hunt and Peck, my typists, for the typos scattered freely through my posts but I expect no improvement since I dont pay them.

adoucette

31st August 2005 - 02:38 PM

Grumpy,
As this thread shows, the nose is well under the tent.
A science teacher has to teach about the precise meaning of Scientific Theory.
Since the fact that Evolution is "only" a Theory, is one of the MAIN things the ID/Creationists use against it. They play on the fact that for most people the meaning of "theory" is the common usage one.

In this forum its been referred to as simply some scientists "opinion".

What better lesson than this one? (kill two birds with one stone?)

As to Bush, the ID/Creationists have taken his statement and run with it, but they are far far from his meaning.

Arthur

wdz

31st August 2005 - 03:07 PM

[QUOTE=Clarence Darrow,Aug 30 2005, 03:42 PM]The first thing the nutjob ID proponents should do to validate their hypothesis is reject all the technology that GODLESS science has provided them. After all that science is founded on assumptions that contradict their own.

You are wrong, ID and the bible do not exclude or contradict science. Science is investigation, testing, and experimentation with the known laws of physics in this world. If you have a God/intelligent designer as shown in the bible who is outside the laws of physics, therefore he cannot be detected or experimented upon with the laws of physics.

[QUOTE=Clarence Darrow,Aug 30 2005, 03:42 PM]I blame Doctor Edward Jenner, his smallpox vaccine prevented the deaths of millions of English Fundamentalists that later became the core of the Bible Beaters that inflict their small mindedness on us today. Just think, that if the Fundies back then had their way and obstructed medical research like they are today with stem cells, not many of them would be around to inflict their idiocy on the world.

So I assume you do not vaccinate/are against vaccinating yourself from measles, polio, or smallpox because if you died from one of those diseases, that would be survival of the fittest and the best thing that would happen for the world?

I do not wish that upon you, but that is just the continuation of that logic.

solidspin

31st August 2005 - 03:30 PM

ok, wdz -

If your statement is accurate...

QUOTE

If you have a God/intelligent designer as shown in the bible who is outside the laws of physics, therefore he cannot be detected or experimented upon with the laws of physics.
 That is PERFECLTY FINE w/ me - you're actually the first biblebanger to have admitted this on this website. Just go away now, since this supposed to be a physics website. How it got usurped into a right-wing religious asylum is really a waste.

Furthermore, since ID crap can't be proven, you CANNOT introduce it into schools as anything more than a "sphere of thought" w/ absolutely no root in physical reality whatsoever. Further, it has NO BUSINESS being taught as a 'competing theory' w/ evolution in ANY science class whatsoever, since evolution is a proven model thousands of times over and ID will NEVER be proven.

Reality is measurable; G_d is not. Sorry to sound so harsh, but the ignorance of people purveying ID is repellant to someone like me who has dedicated his life to measuring and discovering and measuring and discovering, ad nauseam...

-gleefully spinning solids, now that one of the nutjobs has admitted the primary failing of ID.

wdz

31st August 2005 - 09:35 PM

To solidspin- sorry to have aroused any anger in you, but I was just saying what I was taught.

Another thing I was taught- never is a long time.
Again, no offense intended.

Anyway, you said there are thousands of proofs of evolution. I was taught there are none, so I would distrust any thing contrary. So, please, give me a couple examples of proof of evolution- one in solidspinning physics will do. I am willing to learn, but I need empirical evidence. Even a website page link would do fine so you do not need to type everything.

You said this website is the wrong place to discuss this. Well, just tell me where another site is that you and I can discuss this properly. Origin of the earth is hotly debated almost anywhere you look.

J. Wensveen

31st August 2005 - 09:50 PM

hmm: here are some links

http://www.kcfs.org/KsSciSt1999-2001/Flier...ution_proof.pdf

http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html

Or do it simple:

http://www.google.nl/search?hl=nl&q=scient...nG=Zoeken&meta=

There is so much information on the web, the problem is to find the right information among the propaganda of the wackjobs out there that are proof that monkeys behind keyboards can produce readable texts.

SoLoved

1st September 2005 - 06:11 AM

QUOTE

I think the key is PROPERLY TAUGHT.
 Properly taught would mean this (in my opinion):

Teach biology, but do not try to say we evolved from blah blah blah.

Teach a theory of evolution (if you must)

Teach a theory of Intelligent Design (you must)

You don't have to talk about God - you just have to say that there are different opinions on the subject - some believe that the universe was intelligently designed, and others believe in some sort of cosmic explosion.......

I'm sure that all Christians, me included, would love to read chapter 1 of the bible to all the children, but we are very considerate of the differing views on religion and would never try to impose our beliefs on others (in so far as religion is concerned).

We believe we have a right to teach our children what we believe to be true, that evidence points to a designer - telling children about evolution is only half of the debate and really messes up their minds when they go to church or watch TV or in general communicate with other humanoids.

It seems that evolutionists are generally liberal and democratic....this would follow along the lines of pro-choice views. Where's the choice in the science class?

Hmmmmm????

Take care,

SoLoved

Grumpy

1st September 2005 - 03:45 PM

soloved states

"Teach a theory of Intelligent Design (you must)

You don't have to talk about God"

I submit that it is immposible to do one and not the other. If there was intellegence involved in the creation of the universe that intellegence is, by definition, outside the natural realm and thus supernatural. Science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of a supernatural being. this has several ramifications when it comes to teaching a public(for all) school science class;

1. ID is not , in scientific parlance, a theory, it is a hypotesis. a theory has to be testable, repeatable(this does not mean" is too, is not, is too..."), falsifyable and subject to peer review. A hypothesis has a much lower standard. It takes a great deal of verifyable evidence, rational arguement and repeatable experimentation for an H to evolve into a T. Evolution has more than met the criteria for a theory, ID hasn't even met the criteria for a good hypothsis.

2. Since ID without the I is an oxymoron you would have to teach the existance of the I in order to teach ID. Since the I is supernatural(see first paragraph) you would be requiring a public school teacher to teach the existance of a god, no matter how generic you try to make it. that violates the Constitution. So we must NOT teach ID. It is clearly against the law.

3. That a scientific fact causes confusion in your children is unfortunate. If your religion teaches them that the world is flat and if they go too far out in the ocean they will fall off the edge doesn't change the fact that the world is round. In that case, who's at fault? No reputable scientist doubts the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, the evolution of species on Earth or the Big Bang and subsequent evolution of the universe although they will argue endlessly about the hows and whys. We don't know everything but these concepts are as well proven as the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity. Stop fighting a fight you have already lost and adjust your religious views to accomidate reality after all your God works in mysterious ways, maybe it's time for you to actually study those ways. Stop telling your God how he couldn't possibly have created the universe the way we see that it was created and open your mind to the real wonder that is actually there.

SoLoved

1st September 2005 - 04:00 PM

QUOTE (Grumpy+Sep 1 2005, 03:45 PM)

soloved states

"Teach a theory of Intelligent Design (you must)

You don't have to talk about God"

grumpy states:

I submit that it is immposible to do one and not the other. If there was intellegence involved in the creation of the universe that intellegence is, by definition, outside the natural realm and thus supernatural. Science can neither confirm nor deny the existance of a supernatural being. this has several ramifications when it comes to teaching a public(for all) school science class;

1. ID is not , in scientific parlance, a theory, it is a hypotesis. a theory has to be testable, repeatable(this does not mean" is too, is not, is too..."), falsifyable and subject to peer review. A hypothesis has a much lower standard. It takes a great deal of verifyable evidence, rational arguement and repeatable experimentation for an H to evolve into a T. Evolution has more than met the criteria for a theory, ID hasn't even met the criteria for a good hypothsis.

2. Since ID without the I is an oxymoron you would have to teach the existance of the I in order to teach ID. Since the I is supernatural(see first paragraph) you would be requiring a public school teacher to teach the existance of a god, no matter how generic you try to make it. that violates the Constitution. So we must NOT teach ID. It is clearly against the law.

3. That a scientific fact causes confusion in your children is unfortunate. If your religion teaches them that the world is flat and if they go too far out in the ocean they will fall off the edge doesn't change the fact that the world is round. In that case, who's at fault? No reputable scientist doubts the 4.5 billion year age of the Earth, the evolution of species on Earth or the Big Bang and subsequent evolution of the universe although they will argue endlessly about the hows and whys. We don't know everything but these concepts are as well proven as the theory of gravity and the theory of relativity. Stop fighting a fight you have already lost and adjust your religious views to accomidate reality after all your God works in mysterious ways, maybe it's time for you to actually study those ways. Stop telling your God how he couldn't possibly have created the universe the way we see that it was created and open your mind to the real wonder that is actually there.

Option A: Are you saying that because the idea of ID does not fit within your scientific principles that the universe could not possibly have been intelligently designed?

Option B: And if you are not saying that, then how would you incorporate the idea of intelligent design into your scientific principles?

Option D: Or is your philosphy/belief system ABD (anything but design). And how is that different than saying the earth is flat as long as people believe you?

My children are not confused as to what I believe and they are free to believe in whomever or whatever they wish. But at least they know both sides of the story. Not true for those children who do not have Christian parents, or at least parents who have taught both sides of the story.

SoLoved

solidspin

1st September 2005 - 05:53 PM

SoLoved -

That is a load of pusillanimous crap. If your kids knew the data or the theoretical construct of evolution, which is impossible, given your demonstrated ignorance of the Evolutionary model, there would be no discussion. Evolution is a model, copiously supported by evidence. AAMOF, the crowning achievement of molecular biologists is here.

Try to wrap your head around this: now we know the entire genome of our closest evolutionary relative. Now all of the anomalies (40,000,000 base pair differences equate to only 1.8% difference between the 2 genomes) can be mapped.

How about this for an experiment to really piss off the biblebangers? Incrementally modify the base pairs within the genes (or SNiPs or what have you) to produce chimpanzee offspring which increasingly resemble us either genotypically or phenotypically. Evolution in this proposed experiment will be completely irrefutable to the biblebangers, even though less radical, but phenomologically salient experiments similar to this have already been done in species like a. thaliana, c. elegans and other species where we have already deduced these genomes.

- finally spinning solids - got the damned proton amplifier to work

Grumpy

1st September 2005 - 11:08 PM

soloved

Since you have asked a serious question I will attempt a serious answer.

QUOTE

Option A: Are you saying that because the idea of ID does not fit within your scientific principles that the universe could not possibly have been intelligently designed?

No. Because ID does not fit within scientific principles it cannot be taught as a science. Science can neither prove nor can it disprove the existance of a supernatural designer. This is a religious question and, as such, would be perfectly acceptable being taught in a comparative religion class along with other creation myths from other religions.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Option A: Are you saying that because the idea of ID does not fit within your scientific principles that the universe could not possibly have been intelligently designed?

I don't understand why I would want to do that ever. You are surely not suggesting we teach that God created the numbers in a math class, or that all the reactions in a chem lab went that way because "thats the way God wanted it." I don't think a teacher should tell her electronics students that a computer works because of the angels that are inside the chips. The principle remains the same for physics, astrophysics, biochemistry and anthropology, that is teach what is scientifically supportable without politics, religion or superstition.

QUOTE

Option D: Or is your philosphy/belief system ABD (anything but design). And how is that different than saying the earth is flat as long as people believe you?

No, my believe system is NBS(Nothing But the Science). Imagine that, I don't want anything taught in a science, math, chemistry class but the science,math, chemistry, what a concept. Next thing you know I'll be expecting Social Studies in Social Studies class, Home economics in Home Ec. and Phys. Ed. in Phys. Ed. The point I'm making is if you want to teach ID or CS in a public school do it in a comparitive religion class where you can compare creation myths to your hearts content.(It's turtles, turtles I say, turtles all the way down.) And they don't have to believe me, the scientific method allows them to provide evidence for themselves to learn about the world around them. Science is also a way of teaching students to think for themselves and not just rely on dogma passed down from on high, I think this is what scares the religinists the most because a freethinking individual is harder to indoctrinate into superstition.

wdz

2nd September 2005 - 12:14 AM

Solidspin

Steve Smith says we also share 50% of our DNA with bananas, but that doesn't make us half banana, either from the waist up or the waist down.

solidspin

2nd September 2005 - 01:14 AM

wdz -

you pedantic moron - we share ALL of the elements that exist in carrots (carbon, oxygen, selenium, hydrogen, etc.) , does that make us ALL carrots? Can you see how insipid your obtuse logic is?

DNA is source code. The vector is for almost all things (save retroviruses like HIV and hantaviruses) is DNA -> RNA -> protein.

If the phenotype is similar (like us and chimpanzees) you look at the genotype. What do you do for a living? Did you even go to high school? Didn't you learn anything in biology?

The reason why so much preliminary research is done on mice is that our immune, neural systems are so similar.

In fact, the reason why Steve Jones (you didn't even get the name right) said that is because it's quite true, BUT in a very cool way that creationists have no freakin' clue about:

In our genome, we have lots of genes, many of which we don't use. During transcription (see the vector above), specific enzymes excise the genes which are not used (exons) and what's left over, introns are what are transcribed. The totally kickass thing is that the exons are junk DNA - too bad for the creationists that the junk DNA are the same genes that are found in lizards, fish, fruit flies, etc. - but for them, those are their introns!

I love evolution - ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny!!!!!!!!! fish DNA are inside you and I bet you never even knew it

Clarence Darrow

2nd September 2005 - 03:40 AM

we also share 50% of our DNA with bananas,

So get over yourself.

Those genes are probably the dominant inheritance of most Fundamentalists that believe in ID

adoucette

2nd September 2005 - 04:58 AM

SoLoved

2nd September 2005 - 07:43 PM

Grumpy,

It's funny, but I find myself agreeing with some of what you say. I can understand why you feel the way you do.

No, I haven't changed my position. Rather, I'm beginning to see why teaching ID in a Science class is a problem for YOU.

QUOTE

Grumpy states: soloved

Since you have asked a serious question I will attempt a serious answer.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Grumpy states: soloved

Since you have asked a serious question I will attempt a serious answer.

Option A: Are you saying that because the idea of ID does not fit within your scientific principles that the universe could not possibly have been intelligently designed?
 No. Because ID does not fit within scientific principles it cannot be taught as a science. Science can neither prove nor can it disprove the existance of a supernatural designer. This is a religious question and, as such, would be perfectly acceptable being taught in a comparative religion class along with other creation myths from other religions.
 Maybe we should teach Intelligent Design in a seperate class. I'd be OK with that.
The rules of course being: mandatory evolution class = mandatory ID class.

Since science is not in a position to prove or disprove ID then it is not capable of teaching it so it must be taught by those who are capable. (it is not a religious question as you say, this part I disagree with...it has nothing to do with religion because no particular religion would be included in the teaching of ID. And furthermore, I don't think any Christian would want public schools teaching a particular religion. What we probably do want is to teach the possibility of ID. And even furthermore, religion is not a myth - it is real - it can be seen, touched, and experienced).

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

SoLoved states: Option B: And if you are not saying that, then how would you incorporate the idea of intelligent design into your scientific principles?
 Grumpy states: I don't understand why I would want to do that ever. You are surely not suggesting we teach that God created the numbers in a math class, or that all the reactions in a chem lab went that way because "thats the way God wanted it." I don't think a teacher should tell her electronics students that a computer works because of the angels that are inside the chips. The principle remains the same for physics, astrophysics, biochemistry and anthropology, that is teach what is scientifically supportable without politics, religion or superstition.
 Why wouldn't you want to incorporate the idea of ID? Surely you are not biased. Surely you want to consider all possibilities. It is becoming painfully obvious that the evolutionist's only theory is ABD (Anything But Design). There must be huge political and egotistical things going on here.
Just like a computer is designed, so is man.

QUOTE

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

SoLoved states: Option D: Or is your philosphy/belief system ABD (anything but design). And how is that different than saying the earth is flat as long as people believe you?
 Grumpy states: No, my believe system is NBS(Nothing But the Science). Imagine that, I don't want anything taught in a science, math, chemistry class but the science,math, chemistry, what a concept. Next thing you know I'll be expecting Social Studies in Social Studies class, Home economics in Home Ec. and Phys. Ed. in Phys. Ed. The point I'm making is if you want to teach ID or CS in a public school do it in a comparitive religion class where you can compare creation myths to your hearts content.(It's turtles, turtles I say, turtles all the way down.) And they don't have to believe me, the scientific method allows them to provide evidence for themselves to learn about the world around them. Science is also a way of teaching students to think for themselves and not just rely on dogma passed down from on high, I think this is what scares the religinists the most because a freethinking individual is harder to indoctrinate into superstition.
 How is NBS different from ABD? How is intelligent design not science. What do you call a computer - stupid design? (well sometimes I know I do - so maybe that is what you're saying). Social Studies is basically history - why don't they teach about Jesus? He is a great figure of history? Why don't they even mention Him?

NOW, to get to the crux of the matter.......

YOU say "Science is also a way of teaching students to think for themselves...".
If you only teach evolution then you only allow them to think about evolution.
If you add the theory of Intelligent Design.........NOW they can think for themselves.

Religion exists to serve mankind. It is not infallible. It is run by people just like you and me. (Are you human or did you evolve from something else? I was created in the image of God - and no that doesn't mean I have facial features that resemble God - it means I can create, design, feel, and love.)

Have a great weekend all,

SoLoved

It's human, human I say, human all the way down.

wdz

2nd September 2005 - 08:40 PM

I second the motion. Thank you, soloved.

Grumpy

3rd September 2005 - 03:14 AM

soloved states

QUOTE

The rules of course being: mandatory evolution class = mandatory ID class.

It would not be ok with me.

ID is not , in scientific parlance, a theory, it is a hypotesis. a theory has to be testable, repeatable(this does not mean" is too, is not, is too..."), falsifyable and subject to peer review. A hypothesis has a much lower standard. It takes a great deal of verifyable evidence, rational arguement and repeatable experimentation for an H to evolve into a T. Evolution has more than met the criteria for a theory, ID hasn't even met the criteria for a good hypothsis. So in no way would ID or CS be considered equivalent to the science of evolution. If I were forced to teach ID and CS in my class I would spend one day comparing them to the Norse legend, the Hindu legend... for as many creation stories as I could find info on. Then in the next lesson I would say "Class, we discussed X number of creation stories yesterday, now I'm going to tell you what scientists actually found when they studied the fossil record." and I would lay out the scientific facts and encourage the students to study what other scientist have written. We would study actual fossils, perform actual experiments... If a student asked a question or made a statement about God he/she would recieve this answer, "Science can neither prove nor can it disprove the existance of a supernatural designer. This is a religious question and, as such, would be perfectly acceptable being asked in a comparative religion class. it is not appropriate in this class." and that would be all of the discussion of those types of questions I would allow. It's worked for years and if it ain't broke, don't fix it. If a student cannot accept that answer and constantly disrupts the class with religious objections then that student finds out very quickly how very short my fuse really is(my pen name grumpy is not based solely on my appearance) and how hard it is to graduate from school if he is lacking a manditory class. I really dont care if a student doesn't believe a word I say but he will behave in class and he will learn the material. I dont deal with religious beliefs or superstitions, I deal with the facts.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The rules of course being: mandatory evolution class = mandatory ID class.

Because ID does not fit within scientific principles it cannot be taught as a science. I do not know how much simpler I can make it. The idea of a creator or designer, no matter how generic, is not a scientific question. You,nor anybody else, have any evidence to support your hypothesis despite all the blather from this institute of this or that foundation of that, none, zero, zip nada... You brought a knife to a gunfight, a whiffle bat to a major league game, a badmiton racket to Wimbledon. Occam's principle, often called Occam's Razor, states that of two explanations for an event the simpler of the two is correct. In this case we have the facts of evolution(that it occured, that organisms change over time from one species to another following well tested natural processes etc. etc) or the facts of evolution plus an unnessary supernatural designer. Since the first is nowhere seriously questioned your designer is dead weight and is shaved off. It is not my job, nor is it necessary for me to prove your God does not exist.(neither I nor anyone else can prove a negative.) It is up to you to prove the existance of your "designer"( a pseudonym for God, your not fooling anybody)before you will have any possibility of being afforded any respect for your hypothesis. Then when you've done the sweat work equivalent to that done on evolution in the last 135 years then, and only then will you have earned the right to be taught in the same class as evolution. And that my boy is called SCIENCE. And pointing at other science theories and saying "they're not perfect" does not enhance the viability of your hypothesis one little bit.

QUOTE

Since science is not in a position to prove or disprove ID then it is not capable of teaching it so it must be taught by those who are capable. (it is not a religious question as you say, this part I disagree with...it has nothing to do with religion because no particular religion would be included in the teaching of ID. And furthermore, I don't think any Christian would want public schools teaching a particular religion. What we probably do want is to teach the possibility of ID. And even furthermore, religion is not a myth - it is real - it can be seen, touched, and experienced).

I hope I dont seem stupid enough not to see this whole paragraph for the truly stupendous load of CRAP(Creationist Reprobates Attempting Penitration). The Supreme Court easily saw through the CS BS. Then, all of a sudden, ID raises its snakey head, sticks out it's forked tongue and hisses"I'm not really a ssssnake, please take me insssside." Oh Puh-lease!!! No religion means NO religion, no possibility of religion, no generic religion, no religion under another name, no religious concepts... It is the students parents who have SOLE control of the teaching of religion, by the law of the land, I could not teach CS or ID even if I wanted to, and believe me, You do not want me teaching it either.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Boy, this paragraph tops the last one. Dont you have to go change your trowsers? That's two pantloads in a row you've dropped. For the first sentence, see above. For the second, OF COURSE I'm biased. I'm biased toward the truth. For the third, If evolution were disproven tommorrow, ID would not replace it. Your hypothesis has been subjected to the scientific method and discarded as a religious belief not in the realm of science. It is not even in the running to replace evolution. It belongs in a church, a private school or a comparative religion class. Even if the science of Physics were to implode into it's own black hole that would not change. There's political pressure here alright, exerted by right wing religious zealots determined to inject CS light(ID) into public schools after they got their fanny whacked by the Supreme Court over teaching CS. You dont fool us, we've seen your tactics before. ID is a last ditch effort to avoid facing the fact that their many times great grandpa swung from the trees and went "ook,ook"a lot. It will not work any better this time than it did for CS.

QUOTE

How is NBS different from ABD? How is intelligent design not science. What do you call a computer - stupid design? (well sometimes I know I do - so maybe that is what you're saying). Social Studies is basically history - why don't they teach about Jesus? He is a great figure of history? Why don't they even mention Him?

Sigh...I dont think I've had such a slow student before. Nothing But the Science, my little four year old neice got the concept after only three or four repitions(she likes bugs but not worms,"icky" she said). I dont think your stupid soloved, I think you are using techniques of the ID crowd IE. ignore the perfectly good answer you have just recieved and ask the question again in a slightly different way. This is dishonest and dishonorable and shows no respect for the person you are doing it to. My IQ is above 160 on both the California and the Catel scale and my neice is smarter than that IMHO. So stop yanking my chain if you want my respectful, if heated correspondence to continue. My answers stand on their own.

Now my limit has been reached for one night.

lengould

4th September 2005 - 05:44 PM

ID is pretty much just preceding all of Evolution with the statement "And first, a Miracle happened". Personally, i've seen no proof of the miracle. Lots of evidence of where miracles would be convenient, but proof? No.

We might as well start accepting "And then a Miracle Occurred" as the third line of a proof on trigonometry exams in schools as teach ID in schools.

Jerry Duke

22nd September 2005 - 06:33 PM

QUOTE (lengould+Sep 4 2005, 05:44 PM)

... Personally, i've seen no proof of the miracle ...

<img src='http://home.att.net/~Jerry-L-Duke/Cross2.gif' border='0' alt='user posted image' />Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners
I have. You can experience the miracle of having God create a new heart in you, if you are willing. How To Be Saved

GeneSplicer

22nd September 2005 - 06:44 PM

The Case for Santa Claus

Why do people believe that Santa exists and visits them once a year?

If a person has a belief in Santa, then any evidence against him cannot be rationalized or explained away. The history of Santa is written in a clear, logical, and even scientific way. Clear for those who come to it like a child. Logical for those with a mathematical and historical mind. Scientific for those who are willing to dig deeper to find its secrets of xmas. Incorporate all three and the possibilities for discovery are endless.

Does Santa exist?

Billions of people around the world, representing different social, emotional, and educational backgrounds believe in a Santa, a jolly power, a saint. Can you say for certain that they are all wrong?

Xmas 101: The Account of Xmas according to the documented facts (not myth or legend).
1. Santa is physic and partially omnipotent and omniscient able to see all the people of the world at will.
2. As a result, he knows what everyone is doing.
3. He categorizes this information to determine if you have been “bad” of “good”.
4. This information he documents in his “list” and to avoid error, he checks it twice.
5. Based upon the “list” he distributes presents to all the good boys, girls and people of the world in one night.
6. Bad boys, girls and people get coal.
7. He delivers all these present to everyone around the world in just one 24 hour period following the “night” as it circles the globe.

All the proof one needs is under the xmas tree in the form of a present.

Are there any other signs or evidence to support the existence of Santa?
Numerous examples of Santa could be listed here without end, but here are a few.

Acceptance form the innocent: Children with their well developed ability to spot evil at but a glance inherently know that Santa is good. They recognize his true nature and that nature is good.

Society Symbols: When the xmas season falls upon us, just look around for more proof. Santa’s visage is everywhere. Why would he be illustrated in such a manner if he was not real?

Supporting Cast: The documented history of Santa includes many references to other supporting figures. These figures, like Rudolf and Frosty, are also recognized and images displayed at xmas.

The Xmas “Spirit”: During xmas, people are filled with the “giving spirit”. Normally bitter people even feel the spirit move them. Indeed, the giving spirit was able to convert the founder of the Humbug movement himself, Scrooge. Until his death, he was one of the most vocal advocates and supporters of xmas.

Archeological evidence of sleighs found around most of the world through many different strata indicate that Santa has been here from the beginning. The most recent support of Santa was a petrified tree (standing vertically of course) that had on top of it a xmas star found in strata dating back to the Neanderthals.

Do you want to begin a relationship with Santa and actually know you are accepted by Him? This is your decision, no coercion here. But if you want to be forgiven by Santa and come into a relationship with Him, you can do so right now by asking Santa to forgive you and come into your life. If you want to do this, but aren't sure how to put it into words, this may help: "Santa, thank you for bringing me presents on xmas eve. You know my life and that I need to be merry. I ask you to shop for me right now and fill me with the giving spirit. Thank you for not filling my stockings with coal. Amen."

Santa views your relationship with Him as permanent, seasonal, but permanent none the less. Referring to all those who believe in Him, Santa said of us, "Merry xmas to all, and to all a good night.”

So, does Santa exist? Looking at all these facts, one can conclude that a loving Santa does exist and can be known in an intimate, personal way once a year.

Hope this answers many questions.

HO HO HO
Merry Xmas.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.