Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Does evolution contradict creationism?
Talk Origins ^ | 1998 | Warren Kurt VonRoeschlaub

Posted on 11/30/2004 3:53:55 PM PST by shubi

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,001-1,048 next last
To: RadioAstronomer

There is plenty of evidence for creationism as a cult.
Also, I was responding tongue in cheek to another post by another cultist. Go up thread.

Remember no personal attacks. Accusing me of spamming hurts my feelings boohoohoooo lol


101 posted on 12/03/2004 1:20:48 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

shubi:What about getting sucked into the creationist cult and losing your Soul?

Hick:I thank you shubi for finally revealing yourself. I figured that if I picked the scab long enough the puss of Christophobia would manifest itself.

In respect for true believers, please refrain from identifying yourself as one who believes in God. Its embarrassing for us, and it shameful for you.

Thanks in advance. Maybe someday you will have the courage and integrity to actually defend your faith in evolution rather than deploy a volley of lies and insults against the Word of God.


Me again: This is exactly why creationist cultists are so despicable. They try to dupe weak-minded Christians into believing their uninformed interpretations of the Bible and force them into submission to heresy.

Then on top of that, they try to force their silly religious beliefs into biology classrooms and ruin potential scientists with nonsense.


102 posted on 12/03/2004 1:30:06 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: eagle11

Sorry, I think I posted that to you in error. You obviously are not the Scarecrow of the Oz Creationism.


103 posted on 12/03/2004 1:34:18 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

"Why can't all of Gen 2 be one day?"

Up until about verse 5, the first section of Gen 2 refers back to the 7 yoms of creation. After that, it starts into the Adam and Eve narrative, which is a separate creation story from Gen 1 to Gen 2:4. Much of the Genesis 2 narrative is drawn from earlier pagan stories.

This would have been a good way to make people comfortable culturally, when instructing them in a new religion. Paul did the same thing with the unknown god.


104 posted on 12/03/2004 1:43:14 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Remember no personal attacks.

I did not attack you personally at all. However, IMHO, your delivery needs to be toned down. And yes, it comes across as spamming a thread when you post the same loud rhetoric over and over again. Especially when some of the "stuff" you post is wrong such as your statement; "The Big Bang is not a theory" (post #54).

105 posted on 12/03/2004 1:44:32 PM PST by RadioAstronomer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 101 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

"No they are not, so than at one time the big science theory was the earth was flat, didn't make it so."

Flat Earth was actually pre-science. However, notice that once the evidence indicated the Earth was round, science discarded the flat-Earth hypothesis.

This is very unlike the creationists, who would still believe the Earth is flat if they were told to do so by the cult's leaders.


106 posted on 12/03/2004 1:52:09 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

You wrote: "However, the real question is if the literal interpretation of the Bible is falsifiable. It is. It has been down many times. Just one: Dinosaur bones are in chronological order in the strata and dated to millions of years, showing species change over time."


This is the sort of blind and stupid thinking believers in evolution fall into. First it is man that observes the rock strata with certain fossils in them. Because we know rocks were laid down over time we can say bones in lower courses are older...so what? It just means life at that time died at that time and was fossilized. But there is NO indication, absolutely NO hint of gradual changes from species to species.

shubi: That is a very clever sentence, as it is true that species to species differences are difficult to tell from just bones. This is because species differences are very very slight, such that a layman looking at two different species of related beatles would not be able to tell the difference.

Just different life in different eras (that always appear in-toto suddenly in the fossil record and they continue on THE SAME, until extinction or they live on into the next era like sharks and cockroaches). It is only because you wear evolutionists glasses that you LABEL a previous era of life as more primitive than a later era.

shubi: No, it is because the progression of developments of anatomy from two layered jellyfish to worms to annelids to mammals that labels something more "primitive".

That something appeared earlier in the fossil record in no way means it is MORE PRIMITVE than later life of similar morphology, it is simply the labeling game of evolutionists. I can just as well say that different life was created in successive ages and the fossil record bears witness to my interpretation far better than yours, as no transitory species have ever been found, other than labeling games by evolutionists who find a half bird, half lizard, and pronounce it a transition between birds and lizards. How do you know? It could just as well be a lizard-like bird all in its own right! This theory falls in on itself by the weight of its own illogic and contradictory causes and effects. Imagine we are to buy the driving force of evolution that says: "Survival of the fittest," species gain a new niche because they are driven by ruthless competition to exploit some mutation of genes. So a fish starts growing legs to walk on land, but it takes millions of years for the process (wink, wink). All the while it is subject to the same ruthless competion that started the process, but it is no longer an efficient fish, and not yet an efficient land animal. So all the other animals suddenly give this half-assed newly forming species a pass? And they do this for the required million years or so? Freaking ridiculous crap parading as science. Only those that want to find anything, believe anything, but in the immediate creative power of God would buy into this junk.

shubi: Your arguments are the same old fallacy of arguing from personal incredulity. What is the motivation behind you sticking to silly Bible interpretations and substituting that for science? What are you afraid of?


107 posted on 12/03/2004 2:01:55 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer

The Big Bang has enough evidence to make it a theory?
I have heard it called a theory, but I always thought that was the common usage. I thought it was still a hypothesis. But, as I have said, I am a biologist not a cosmologist.

In any event, if you don't like my posts, don't read them.


108 posted on 12/03/2004 2:04:52 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: shubi
This is very unlike the creationists, who would still believe the Earth is flat if they were told to do so by the cult's leaders.

Creationism has just as much supporting it as does the other theory. Both are lacking any proof. One used the remains of animals that are extinct and try to say it shows some type of linking. To beleive evolution you must make giant leaps of faith, and to believe in creation it is just a small question of faith.

109 posted on 12/03/2004 2:23:13 PM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: RadioAstronomer; PatrickHenry; ThinkPlease; Physicist
I'm still waiting for the back-up for the stunning claim: "The Big Bang can be proved wrong in a matter of seconds...." posted in #49 of this thread.

Somehow, I don't think we are ever going to see it...

110 posted on 12/03/2004 2:28:55 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: stockpirate

Creationism is NOT a theory.

The TOE connects millions of pieces of data.


111 posted on 12/03/2004 2:35:19 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 109 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Do you actually read and think about such sentences as:

"That is a very clever sentence, as it is true that species to species differences are difficult to tell from just bones. This is because species differences are very very slight, such that a layman looking at two different species of related beatles would not be able to tell the difference."

Difficult to tell? You cannot tell at all! You can take the bones of the Australian wolf (forget the scientific name) and those of the American wolf and very few biologists, even paleontologists would know the difference, yet anyone seeing them alive would immediately discern the difference. The are not even in the same family! One marsupial, one mammal. It goes to my point that evolutionary doctrine forces scientists into very unscientific behaviors. No branch of science is replete with so many frauds over time...from the tooth of a pig being used to build an entire exhibit of a caveman family, to the skull of Lucy!

Evolutionists so want their theory to be true! What are they (you) afraid of?

As for me I am not bothered at all. I not only have good evidence that the Bible is always true, and always victorious over history, over all its critics. But I have my own personal experience with God, not to mention the testimony of millions that have had personal experiences with God, not a few of them men of far greater intellect than you or I. Among them you will find the founders of modern science. Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Boyle, and the list goes on...

Evolutionists are human and they cannot even pretend that "science" washes them of their prejudice and bias, although they try. Evolution is, by and large, an excuse to deny God as the creator. It always boils down to the fact that evolutionists and modernistic Christians cannot face the creative power of God that transcends time and process. The evidence is all around you. Do not think a fallen intellect is an excuse, men have been trying to hide from God and wearing their fig leaves since the fall.

As long as I can place God at a distance, even through process or time, I do not have to face my own rebellion and disobedience to Him. I can always pretend I have no moral obligations to myself, family, nation, and God. O, how the ruthless tycoons of the 19th century like Rockefeller and others welcomed and embraced Darwinism...now they could cloak their ruthlessness in psuedo-scientific mumbo jumbo.
112 posted on 12/03/2004 2:44:55 PM PST by Jehu
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 107 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Ah, what is it?


113 posted on 12/03/2004 3:21:03 PM PST by stockpirate (Check out my bio and learn about sKerry and his Socialist friends.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: eagle11
Any explanation of science only invites more ridicule from them,

Ok, I give, when did any of you Sons-of-Monkeys offer science? Just typing the word does not mean that you are employing science. OTOH, I believe I have had the exclusive franchise on introducing science into the discussion. I ask about all of those benficial mutations that are never observed (which you have to have reproducable observations in order to even enter into the arena of "science"). I ask you folks to provide science that demonstrates how dead fish can lay on the lake bottom unmolested for thousands and thousands of years slowly being covered with sediments - never decomposing, never becoming a meal for another fish, never having its bones shifted by currents. I question the sanity in expecting fruitful results from SETI - and there you have utter ridicule on parade. Come on you scientists! Where's my explanation for abiogenesis? Where's that scientific explanation for how new information gets introduced to a biological system? I want to know how you transform energy into heavy metals. How do evolutionists look at a tooth or a single bone and not only know how the complete critter looks, but also skin and hair color?

creationists are alot like liberals, they feel threatened by any rational challenge to their views

Judging by how the evolutionary lobby cries in protest over the mere thought of allowing a word of discussion of Creationism into the halls of knowledge and scientific inquiry, I would say that you and your pals are projecting.

Viva Hypocrisy!

114 posted on 12/03/2004 3:59:11 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 97 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
I'm still waiting for the back-up for the stunning claim: "The Big Bang can be proved wrong in a matter of seconds..

Since proponents of the Big Bang are unlikely to entertain any problems to the theory, merely dismissing them as objections to ultimately be resolved, it is unlikely that any proofs will make it through the labyrinth of biases and deliberate blindness.

Yet...

  1. The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter/energy of the cosmos out radially from its center, and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion.  Yet there are all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of the stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang.
  2. Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is anisotropic in all directions.
  3. The universe is anything but uniform in large-scale structure, as both the Big Bang and Steady State theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos in far from any uniform manner.  Some astronomers are now trying somehow to to imagine a primeval lumpy Big Bang.
  4. In the context of the primeval fireball it is hard to justify the accumulation of any amount of matter in any one location such as a star.  If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?
  5. And saving the best for last, the most serious objection comes back to the second law of thermodynamics.  Explosions produce disorder, not order.  The primordial superexplosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder.  If the universe is indeed a closed system as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?

115 posted on 12/03/2004 5:47:25 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Hebrew poetry often does this. Take as example the story of Bathsheeba. The story is preceded by a summary description of a period of wartime. But the Bathsheeba events happen during the war. Gen 1:1 gives an overall summary - kind of like a title. Then, more detail is given in the seven-day-story. All of this is then backdrop for the Eden description. 2:4 is not an event. The Eden description end with the description of Adam and Eve. Then, in chapter 3, we beging moving in time again with the story of the Fall. The yom you spoke of in verse 4 is actually a b-yom: in that day.
116 posted on 12/03/2004 6:09:15 PM PST by derheimwill (Tagline, Schmagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 104 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill
Hebrew poetry often does this. Take as example the story of Bathsheeba. The story is preceded by a summary description of a period of wartime. But the Bathsheeba events happen during the war. Gen 1:1 gives an overall summary - kind of like a title. Then, more detail is given in the seven-day-story. All of this is then backdrop for the Eden description. 2:4 is not an event. The Eden description end with the description of Adam and Eve. Then, in chapter 3, we beging moving in time again with the story of the Fall. The yom you spoke of in verse 4 is actually a b-yom: in that day.

I agree that 1:1 is a summary of creation and an introduction. There is a lot more to it than that, but I don't have time to go into it with you right now.

And I would agree that it is typical to go back and forth temporally, as the Hebrew verbs did not have the same sense of time we use in English.

However, there are some interesting points about the seven yoms you must consider. Each has a number, except the first day really should be translated "day one" because it did not use the "harishon" form for first. The rest use second, third etc. This is significant.

As to the bet in front of yom in the 4th verse, I see little significance in this. I know some say if it is a prepositional clause yom takes on a different meaning, but this is a simplistic view at best. The Hebrew had no spaces between words, so putting the bet with the yom is arbitrary. It might just have been a separate word in the minds of the Hebrews. In any event, it does not change the meaning of bucket if I say "in the bucket". And the form of Genesis 1 to Genesis 2:4 fits Hebrew poetry's thought rhyming, in that the summary at the end is a repetition with an amplification of the thought. The two together should be convincing to anyone who is an objective analyzer of the Hebrew that "yom" means long periods of time. Why would verse Gen 2:4 talk about generations if it wasn't? It means long generations or lists of geneologies of the history of the Earth and the Universe in this context.

To trivialize "yom" here and not connect it to the intended meaning God reveals to us in the fact of evolution is disingenuous at best, rejection of God at worst.

117 posted on 12/03/2004 6:37:01 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: shubi
Why would verse Gen 2:4 talk about generations if it wasn't?

I'm not suggesting that definition but, it's not "day 8." I believe it refers to day 6.

118 posted on 12/03/2004 6:43:46 PM PST by derheimwill (Tagline, Schmagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 117 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

The yom in Gen 2:4 obviously refers back to all the 7 yoms in Gen 1.


119 posted on 12/03/2004 6:47:47 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: shubi

A distinction without difference. I am primarily arguing the coherency of Gen. 1 - 9 and the historicity of the account.


120 posted on 12/03/2004 6:51:29 PM PST by derheimwill (Tagline, Schmagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
Hey Reuben, would you mind attributing where you got this from, instead of plagiarizing it? Not disclosing your references is so annoying.

Oh and by the way, your arguments contradict each other. 5 doesn't make sense in the light of 2 or 3, right?

If 5 were true, how can snowflakes be formed in a cloud? Order from disorder, right? And 4? Just a bad argument. Whoever thought it up has no concept of gravity, or just how long billions of years is. That's not surprising, since whoever thought these arguments up has no problem limiting God to a little book written by men thousands of years ago.

121 posted on 12/03/2004 6:53:52 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: derheimwill

OK, I would be happy to discuss any part of the first 9 verses with you. It has been a passion of mine for over 20 years.

What I have been advocating is a non-literalist translation that comports with reality as we have found it in science. For instance, it is obvious to me that "let there be light" comports with Einstein's formula for energy to matter conversion.


122 posted on 12/03/2004 7:04:38 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: shubi

Evolution is man's limited attempt to explain the miracle of God.


123 posted on 12/03/2004 7:23:55 PM PST by UCANSEE2 (>)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jehu
"Evolutionary Theory is hostile to the very core of Christian belief."

I'm kind of hesitant to believe that... imagine when God revealed the creation of man to moses. If he fast forwarded the process he would first see nothing, (although bacteria were present) and then he would see a man forming from the dust.

"You cannot impute original sin to the human race if we all descended from tribes of apes. No original parents, no sin in those parents (thus transmitted to all offspring). No orginal sin committed by the first parents?"

you also seem to support that being descended from apes means that a human could not have commited original sin, au contraire, no animal is bound under the law, but humans are. God told Adam not to eat of the fruit... if he told an ape, its not mentioned in the Bible.

"Then sin cannot be removed by the new head of the human race...Christ."

sure it can. is your faith so small that you put God in a box so that he is incapable of using evolution as a tool?

" Article of faith, but never the less you cannot smuggle the ideas of Evolution into true Christian faith."

I honestly do not believe we were descended from apes... but even if we were it does not matter. Jesus still died for my sins.

" Either we are damned under inescapable sin and in need of a Divine deliverer, or we can work it out ourselves."

Amen

"So far I see no evidence that humanity can work out how to bring peace to the Middle East, let alone deliver itself from greed, lust, hatred, wars, violence, perversion...no matter how smart we think we have become. Smarter we get, the more lethal our weapons."

I realize this is non-sequiter to the topic, but is greed really that bad? I mean wanting to get ahead is what capitalism is centered around. I can see where hatred might be a problem. but are wars and violence necessarily bad? i mean God told Moses and the Hebrews to smash the city of Jericho... If you honestly believe god is omni-benevolent, then this couldn't have been wrong. And i think you're right about perversion. Thats definitely a bad thing.
124 posted on 12/03/2004 8:06:04 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick; RadioAstronomer; ThinkPlease; Physicist; PatrickHenry; VadeRetro; Gordian Blade
Yet...

1. The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter/energy of the cosmos out radially from its center,....

The Big Bang ("BB") Cosmology posits no "explosion," nor any center to the universe. Whoever wrote this doesn't understand the theory he's arguing against.

.... and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there are all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of the stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang.

Only someone who doesn't understand the BB theory and what conservation of angular momentum actually means could have written something like this. Conservation of Angular Momentum in no way poses an impediment to orbital motion of stars, galaxies, or anything else.

2. Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is anisotropic in all directions.

The author blunders again. The CMBR IS isotropic down to a relatively fine level of temperature resolution, below which point the Inflationary Model of the BB specifically predicts an amount, and distribution, of anisotropy that is exquisitely in agreement with the most recent observations of the W-MAP probe. Contrary to what the author proposes, the currently accepted BB theory (the Inflationary Model) predicts exactly what has been confirmed observationally.

3. The universe is anything but uniform in large-scale structure, as both the Big Bang and Steady State theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos in far from any uniform manner.

The author errs again. On a Cosmological scale, the OBSERVED distribution of matter is homogeneous; it is only on smaller scales that the clumpiness is noted, but at cosmological distances, the clumpiness averages out, just as the BB theory predicts.

..... Some astronomers are now trying somehow to to imagine a primeval lumpy Big Bang.

The author appears to not understand, or misrepresents the degree of "lumpiness" in the early Universe. The subtle anisotropies observed by the W-MAP probe (as mentioned in my response to your item #2 above) are all that is needed to "seed" the universe for galaxy formation. So, in fact, the lumpiness WAS predicted, and has been found to be in agreement with the predictions of the BB theory.

4. In the context of the primeval fireball it is hard to justify the accumulation of any amount of matter in any one location such as a star.

It is not even clear what the author means by this statement.

.... If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?

Again, the author implies the BB is some sort of "explosion" -- it wasn't. Secondly, he suggests that the BB is "driving the galaxies apart" when, in fact, under the BB theory, galaxy formation didn't take place for several million or even a billion years afterwards. He also seems to believe that the expansion of the Universe somehow imparts momentum to objects within it, which is NOT the case.

5. And saving the best for last, the most serious objection comes back to the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order. The primordial superexplosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder.

Once more, the author incorrectly characterizes the BB as an "explosion."

.... If the universe is indeed a closed system as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?

The author clearly doesn't understand thermodynamics any better than he understands the BB theory. Adiabatic expansion is isentropic, and there is nothing about the Second Law of thermo that precludes localized decreases in entropy as long as the net entropy of the system and its surroundings increases.

If you are interseted in learning about what the BB theory actually is, I suggest you abandon the website from which you plagerized your response, and check this out instead:

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm

It is written by a real astronomer who is knowledgeable in the subject.

125 posted on 12/03/2004 8:10:52 PM PST by longshadow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: longshadow
Allow me to interject with some of my own ignorance.

Let me state the given:

1.The universe exists

2.For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction

3.There are stars in the night sky

4.Occasionally a new star will appear in the night sky

5.Matter may neither be created nor destroyed/

So there are three possibilities for the existence of the universe.
A.) The Universe does not exist. Everything is an illusion

B.)The Universe has always existed.

And C.)The Universe was spawned into existence at some time. For example The BB theory.

For the sake of argument let us discard A as a possibility

Let us assume B. If the universe has always existed, then stars in the sky have been consuming resources for an amount of time equaling negative infinity. Therefore not only are there no resources presently existing, there are negative infinity resources. We know this is false. Therefore Case B is false.

Let us assume B again, only this time, we will go with the idea that resources will regenerate within stars via some reaction. So we know that stars have been shining in the direction of earth forever, therefore all stars in the universe, not concealed by phenomena such as nebulae, are visible from the Earth. However we know also that a new stars light will occasionally reach earth, so Case B is again false.

So let us assume C.

The Universe was spawned at some point. Therefore some body of mass must have existed before the creation of the universe, that is the make up of what is now the universe. We know this is true because of the given that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So in order for the universe to exist as it is now, some reaction must have taken place to get the result of the universe. However there can be no reaction if there is no action to begin with.

THEREFORE THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXIST.

Or, if you prefer, the universe does exist, and the original first cause must be that some deity triggered the reaction that resulted in what is now the universe.



This has been on my mind recently, and I've been hoping someone would argue it with me, so please don't disappoint me. Thanks.
126 posted on 12/03/2004 8:39:38 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: Jehu

"The fish that are not good swimmers now have defense mechanisms, did your proto-amphib have defense mechanisms?"
What defense mechanisms do the fish have now?
This is rather besides the point seeing as the first amphibean fossils were fishlike with adapted fins. Unless you are claiming that the fossils are fake, they must have existed and survived.

"Gee I wonder if they have a vested interest?"
now its really getting into the realm of conspiracy theories. How can we even trust NASA landed on the moon when they have a "vested interest" in telling us that?

"Name one! Give me an identified transitional species between two known and distinct species!"
homo erectus between homo habilis and homo sapien (us)

"WRONG! Not only is it closer to some turtles, think of this, they are not even mammals."
I looked up phylogenetic trees based on hemoglobin a and b, and in both primates were closest to humans. While turtles weren't on there, the reptile/amphibean groups that were, were on a different branch. Try as much as I can I cannot find anything on google by searching for "turtle human hemoglobin evolution". If it was a good argument against evolution then it would most likely be online.

"For reference the book is called "Darwin was Wrong" Put out by some biologists probably 30 years ago"
I appreciate the reference but I cannot find anything about this book online either. I will take your word for it though.

"Funny thing is that this book kept disappearing from the library stacks at the University I attended. The University would keep buying it, but some (fair-minded) evolutionists must not have liked its utterly damning evidence that micro-evolution does not follow any Darwinian model."
In fact evolutionists usually go around in packs of 5 in libraries so they don't get scared by all the damning evidence left right and center.

"So what? Mankind sorts and categorizes, that we would based on morphology should surprise nobody. Just because we sort animals into forms and types does not mean they descended from one to the other."
It isn't just a sort based on morphology, the date of the fossil is a large restriction. If a human fossil was found in the cambrian for example then that is common descent done for. No amount of morphology categorisation is going to fix that.

"You have no idea what so ever if paleo-horses are related in anyway to modern horses"
I don't know for sure but there are several things that make it very likely.

-If proto-horses and modern horses are not related, then where did modern horses come from and where did proto-horses go?
It it far to convenient that protohorses disapeared and then suddenly a similar looking beast appears. It makes far more sense that the proto-horses became the modern horses. This accounts for both the disapearance of protohorses, and more importantly accounts for the appearance of modern horses. Especially considering that old modern horse fossils show that they were morphologically different than present day modern horses.

"Tell me if horses got longer and longer legs cause sabertooth was chasing them...how come the tigers didn't get longer legs to catch them?"
I dont know whether that was the reason why they developed longer legs. I doubt it though, it was probably just group behaviour driving it where the slower members didn't get to mate and stuff. Also a long legged tiger would find it harder to sneak up on anything.


127 posted on 12/03/2004 9:40:16 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

"The Universe was spawned at some point. Therefore some body of mass must have existed before the creation of the universe, that is the make up of what is now the universe. We know this is true because of the given that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. So in order for the universe to exist as it is now, some reaction must have taken place to get the result of the universe. However there can be no reaction if there is no action to begin with.

THEREFORE THE UNIVERSE DOES NOT EXIST.

Or, if you prefer, the universe does exist, and the original first cause must be that some deity triggered the reaction that resulted in what is now the universe."

Or the law of causation does not apply to the origin of the universe, because the law of causation requires time to preceed the event in order that it can work.
The beginning of time is literally an event without a cause, because time did not exist before the event.

It is the law of causation that that causes the contradiction, so it is the law of causation that is not necessarily true.

The law of causation is a rule we have made because every event we have ever observed, we also observe a cause. So we assume it is always true and turn it into a universal law.

All laws are assumptions based on a repeated observation holding true. The assumption is that they apply everywhere in the universe and every time throughout the universe despite the fact that we have not checked them everywhere. But it is extremely reasonable to assume that because other places in the universe do not differ too much, the laws apply there too.

But applying laws to places or times that are very different to the one we observe the laws holding may not be reasonable.

It's like observing that every mark on a long tape measure has a mark preceeding it. So we make the rule "every marked inch on the tape measure has a marked inch before it" and if we stick to around the middle area of the tape measure, it will hold true for every point we test. But as soon as we test the beginning of that tape measure, we find that the rule no longer works there. An exception which should have been considered seeing as the beginning of the tape measure is a unique place.


128 posted on 12/03/2004 10:00:22 PM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
"-If proto-horses and modern horses are not related, then where did modern horses come from and where did proto-horses go?
It it far to convenient that protohorses disappeared and then suddenly a similar looking beast appears. It makes far more sense that the proto-horses became the modern horses."

This is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It would simply be more logical to say that rather than becoming something else, that the design merely repeated itself because it is a more resilient design, and leave whether or not one actually did become the other to actual scientific evidence, which has, up to date, failed to provide anything supporting that argument.
129 posted on 12/03/2004 10:01:47 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
"Or the law of causation does not apply to the origin of the universe, because the law of causation requires time to preceed the event in order that it can work.
The beginning of time is literally an event without a cause, because time did not exist before the event. "

Are you suggesting that by some fluke, that at one point actual time did not exist, that seconds, and hours, and days and all other units of time were simply meaningless. That is impossible with the fact that the space the universe is now contained in must have existed forever. Therefore time must exist at all points along the number line of time. What you suggest, is that time is not a line, extending in both directions, rather that it is a ray or segment. that it begins at some point. The phrase "beginning of time" is not literal, rather it refers to the point where the universe was created upon the number line of time. Time cannot simply exist at one point and then *poof* not exist.

"The law of causation is a rule we have made because every event we have ever observed, we also observe a cause. So we assume it is always true and turn it into a universal law."

I drop a can. Gravity causes the can to fall. Therefore gravity exists. Saying that the laws of physics can suddenly not exist is more of a leap of faith than I am willing to take.

"But applying laws to places or times that are very different to the one we observe the laws holding may not be reasonable. "

And yet your theory that time at one point did not exist has zero evidence to support it, whereas my theory that the laws of physics are, and must remain a constant does have evidence to support it.

"It's like observing that every mark on a long tape measure has a mark preceeding it. So we make the rule "every marked inch on the tape measure has a marked inch before it" and if we stick to around the middle area of the tape measure, it will hold true for every point we test. But as soon as we test the beginning of that tape measure, we find that the rule no longer works there. An exception which should have been considered seeing as the beginning of the tape measure is a unique place."

This is a very poor analogy. In this analogy a tape measure is used to represent time. On your tape measure we know that there are points that are not marked. For example, there is no -1 in. mark on your tape measure, but we know there is a point that is 1 inch before where the tape measure begins, in just the same fashion, there is a point before the "creation" where time exists.
130 posted on 12/03/2004 10:24:36 PM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
Okay. I'm not a scientist, but a student of its development in history and its applications in our world. Science is an accumulation of ordered knowledge acquired by rigorous observation and documentation of phenomena, and the investigation of possible causes of the phenomena, which can be reduced to a testable hypothesis, either debunked or qualified by process. Successful inquiry is carried out transparently and invites criticism and independent audit of the process. Experiments are carried out by independent parties to test the hypothesis suggested by data collected.

Outcome is measured by the veracity of the process, checked against proven standards set by a record of past successes in like fields of study. We cannot allow the process to be prejudiced by our cherished notions of an ideal cosmology. Nor can we be true to the scientific process if we expect the outcome to champion our political agendas or justify our religious faith.

Advocates of creationism or ID seem to fall into two categories. Some don't appreciate that science is as essential to our survival as raising children to be the mature, intelligent and moral adults needed to propagate our species. Then others - often in a paranoid tone - mischaracterize science as a religion or cult, and they typically fixate on the theories of cosmology and evolution as potential threats to their own religious faith and family values.

Again, I'm not a scientist, nor would I ever be tempted to embrace a false concept of science as religion, and revere its theories as absolute and involiable doctrine. I hope I'm wrong when I suggest you would suspect a reasonable person of such a travesty.

A great example of natural selection driving beneficial mutation is the common flu virus. Every year we concoct a new vaccine to combat the outbreak, and every year, a new strain finds its way into our bodies from diseased chickens in China every year. Last year's vaccine killed of the virus strain with genetic traits we predicted when we devised the serum. Any viroids that inherited beneficial traits from last year's survivors will be immune to last year's vaccine. So the cycle begins anew. Every so often a superstrain emerges, and we find ourselves vulnerable until we can work out a winning vaccine. Of course, thousands of generations of the flu strain come and go in the course of a year, each organism living only hours or days.

How can a dead fish remain unmolested on the ocean floor and never decompose? I take it you're wondering how science can address the issue of fossils. Well, oceans are big places, and not every deceased fish will draw the attention of a scavenging shark. So over the centuries and eons sediment piles up, and the combined wieght of the water and sediment compress the body, and over a million years perhaps the fish is fossilized.

Abiogensis, the theory that inanimate matter is transformed into animate life. Hmmmm....this cannot be a true scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory. Why do you demand that science explain this fiction? I'm waiting for quantum physicists to provide me with their overdue explanation for vacuum-genesis....

How does new (genetic) information enter into a "closed" biological system? I have no idea. Don't all lifeforms have to eat and then eliminate? Don't they procreate and bear offspring? Ask a microbiologist.

And now a space question! Ever heard of nucleosynthesis? Essentially, it is a theory - successfully proven by observation - that explains how all the chemical elements, the atoms that compose our planet and our very bodies were produced inside long gone stars through the process of fussion. I'm no astrophysicist, so I suggest you find a book written by one that explains this more consicely than I can.

I'm not really into evolution as much as astrophysics, so I'm going to pass on this issue. I suppose the more specimens they can classify from field study, the better they get at predicting what specimen goes with what species. Another opportunity for independent study.

And finally, my crack about creationists as liberals. I couldn't help pointing out what I see as a common trait shared by those who present an alternative view to a genuine scientific theory, but cannot muster any evidence of their own to win over the skeptics. If ID can explain the origins of phenomena that current science cannot address, I'd like to read your White Paper. If you can't publish your proposal and defend why you believe ID is a likely source of empirical knowledge missed by science, you won't get any further in your inquiry. Meanwhile, though my science IQ doesn't qualify me to teach String Theory at Columbia University, I'll continue to appreciate and defend the scientific process, and the notion that humans are a speicies of advanced primates, that dark energy is speeding up the inflation of the universe and......that for reasons neither I nor any scientist can explain...praying with my rosary and reading Psalms and Ecclesiastes heals my soul. - PEACE!

131 posted on 12/03/2004 10:39:19 PM PST by eagle11 (Once a people invents a word for "liberty", they are restless until they win if for themselves.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 114 | View Replies]

To: UCANSEE2

Nope.
Evolution does not include first creation of life.
Genetics explains every form of life on Earth from that point through the Theory of Evolution.


132 posted on 12/04/2004 1:43:39 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

Creationists think in terms of individual changes, rather than changes in populations. This is where your problem lies in understanding the point.


133 posted on 12/04/2004 3:00:22 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

"This is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc. It would simply be more logical to say that rather than becoming something else, that the design merely repeated itself because it is a more resilient design, and leave whether or not one actually did become the other to actual scientific evidence, which has, up to date, failed to provide anything supporting that argument."

Not at all. The design obviously repeated itself, but leaving it at that does not explain where it came from and is scientifically useless as an explaination. Common descent however does explain it, and is able to predict what sort of fossil forms we should expect to find in the future.


134 posted on 12/04/2004 6:44:53 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: conservative_crusader

"Are you suggesting that by some fluke, that at one point actual time did not exist, that seconds, and hours, and days and all other units of time were simply meaningless. That is impossible with the fact that the space the universe is now contained in must have existed forever."

The universe is not contained in any space. Space and time exist within our universe. The universe contains -everything- we observe: space, planets, stars, time, matter is all part of the universe.
If time began at the start of the universe, then there is no such thing as "before the universe", because a point cannot exist in time without time existing.

"The phrase "beginning of time" is not literal, rather it refers to the point where the universe was created upon the number line of time. Time cannot simply exist at one point and then *poof* not exist.
The universe contains "everything" and this includes time.
Time is a part of the universe so whenever time has existed, so has the universe. What you are talking about is that for an infinite amount of years no space, stars or planets existed. Your creation event is not the beginning of the universe, it is the beginning of space and matter. In this regard you are essentially saying that the universe has existed forever, but only very recently has matter and space appeared.

"I drop a can. Gravity causes the can to fall. Therefore gravity exists. Saying that the laws of physics can suddenly not exist is more of a leap of faith than I am willing to take."
You have only demonstrated that the law of gravity worked in that one example. You only assume on faith that it will again, and does elsewhere in the galaxy. But it is unreasonable to assume otherwise.

"And yet your theory that time at one point did not exist has zero evidence to support it, whereas my theory that the laws of physics are, and must remain a constant does have evidence to support it."
Well space and time are pretty intertwined with one another. I imagine that it is a large possibility that before space existed, neither did time. Especially considering there would be no frame of reference for it to exist.

"This is a very poor analogy. In this analogy a tape measure is used to represent time. On your tape measure we know that there are points that are not marked. For example, there is no -1 in."
Okay if you want to get picky then say the tape measure is a gradient of color from blue to red. You make the rule "each color is preceeded by a bluer one". But the beginning of the tape measure is unique, it is pure blue and no possible bluer color preceeding it.



135 posted on 12/04/2004 7:04:52 AM PST by bobdsmith
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
First let me say I'm really enjoying debating with you. I live in rural Oklahoma where everyone agrees with me most of the time, so this is really quite refreshing.

"The universe is not contained in any space. Space and time exist within our universe. The universe contains -everything- we observe: space, planets, stars, time, matter is all part of the universe.
If time began at the start of the universe, then there is no such thing as "before the universe", because a point cannot exist in time without time existing."

Ok then... The space within the Universe, that contains the Universe has always existed then. One of the theories that is often advanced, is that the universe is always expanding. If this is so, then there must be space outside it that it expands into. So that space must have also always existed. If there is any distinction between the spaces inside and outside of the universe, they both must have always existed. To suggest otherwise, means that the universe is actually creating space.but in any case since space must exist outside the universe, then time must also exist outside the universe.

"The universe is not contained in any space. Space and time exist within our universe. The universe contains -everything- we observe: space, planets, stars, time, matter is all part of the universe.
If time began at the start of the universe, then there is no such thing as "before the universe", because a point cannot exist in time without time existing."

In the last argument i proved that the universe *is* contained inside space. So this entire argument also falls, because your given is flawed.

"You have only demonstrated that the law of gravity worked in that one example. You only assume on faith that it will again, and does elsewhere in the galaxy. But it is unreasonable to assume otherwise."

So is it logical to assume that every time that I drop the can that i should expect the can to merely float in space where i dropped it, or perhaps float away from the earth? I should think not. There was zero evidence for this theory when you submitted it originally, there is still zero evidence supporting it now.When I drop article X close to another large mass, (such as the earth,) then article X will be very powerfully gravitated toward that object. So for another example, the star "Proxima Centauri" has a force exerted upon it by the sun, and vice versa. In the same way every other mass within the universe exerts a force on every other mass in the universe.

"Well space and time are pretty intertwined with one another. I imagine that it is a large possibility that before space existed, neither did time. Especially considering there would be no frame of reference for it to exist."

Once again I've already proved that a certain sort of space, (if there is a distinction between it and the space we are familiar with) must exist therefore your given is flawed, and this argument falls.

"Okay if you want to get picky then say the tape measure is a gradient of color from blue to red. You make the rule "each color is preceeded by a bluer one". But the beginning of the tape measure is unique, it is pure blue and no possible bluer color preceeding it."

No that is false, because at the point just before blue, the color would proceed on to violet and colors that you could not see with the naked eye, and the red side would go on toward infrared colors.
136 posted on 12/04/2004 8:04:19 AM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 135 | View Replies]

To: bobdsmith
"Not at all. The design obviously repeated itself, but leaving it at that does not explain where it came from and is scientifically useless as an explaination. Common descent however does explain it, and is able to predict what sort of fossil forms we should expect to find in the future."

This is really a ridiculous thing to argue over. Essentially my argument says that either A.) Animals evolve to one another, or B.) The design repeated itself some other way. Either way is a scientifically useful explanation, and actually my argument embodies your argument your argument cannot be true if my argument is not true. However my hypothesis also leaves room for the possibility that life may have been created via other means. And yes, your argument is a fallacy called post hoc ergo proctor hoc, just because a protohorse looks like a modern horse does not necessarily have anything to do with evolution.
137 posted on 12/04/2004 8:15:51 AM PST by conservative_crusader (Annuit Coeptis (He has smiled on our undertaking))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Hey Reuben, would you mind attributing where you got this from, instead of plagiarizing it?

Hey ThinkPlease, are you still beating your domestic partner?

So, ThinkPlease, could you think, please?   We know that you can try to avoid defending your faith by attacking others, but ad hominems aren't recognized as great alternatives.
Let's look at your well thought out response to the five matters brought to bear:

Oh and by the way, your arguments contradict each other. 5 doesn't make sense in the light of 2 or 3, right?

It is true that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated.  It is true that according to the that law the universe should be uniform and have a homogeneous and isotropic background radiation.  But examination of the cosmos has revealed that we have a "lumpy Big Bang".   As a brilliant scientist, no doubt, you are probably quick to throw away Newtonian physics because maintenance of an unprovable theory is tantamount to the ends of erasing God.   Under the Creation model, everything works.   Instead of having all matter appear ex nihilo in one central place in the universe and having it explode in such a way where chaos turns magically into order, we believe, as Scripture plainly states, that the stars and planets were put into place for a purpose and that is to determine signs and seasons.   Under intelligent design, it should be expected that the universe is not uniform.  Because we are told that the stars were put into their place we should expect a "lumpy universe" in accordance to accomplishing the goals of providing signs and seasons.

In short, we don't have a contradiction.  You do, by the mere fact you have anisotropic universe and a theory that requires scientists to abandon well understood physical laws.  We have a beautiful universe, masterfully and wonderfully made, you have an ugly accident that defies explanation.  Why is this important?  Because as Creationists, we believe that there is a purpose to the order in which we see.   Because we believe that there is purpose, we can rely on those things which we discover to be true.   As God haters, you can't even trust natural laws anymore.  You look at the 2nd Law and see it as an impediment to your faith.   You can't even trust your own findings to be true.

But I do thank you for the belly laugh this morning for this particular comment:

If 5 were true, how can snowflakes be formed in a cloud?

My natural response was to assume that you were being sarcastic and thus put something this stupid out there as a joke, but on later consideration I figured it would be best to assume that you were serious.  If you did submit this as a joke, I apologize in advance.

My initial reaction was what does a snowflake have in common with the Big Bang?

I can continue, but you may project again and assume that I have plagiarized...

 

 

138 posted on 12/04/2004 8:37:11 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: shubi
I have heard it called a theory, but I always thought that was the common usage

If the whole research facility believes it and everyone who doesn't is stupid, it must be true.
(/sarcasm)

It's the same in a number of fields...

139 posted on 12/04/2004 8:37:15 AM PST by derheimwill (Tagline, Schmagline)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: eagle11
Ok, you have provided two statements in the context of this open discussion:

"Science is an accumulation of ordered knowledge acquired by rigorous observation and documentation of phenomena, and the investigation of possible causes of the phenomena, which can be reduced to a testable hypothesis, either debunked or qualified by process."

And...

"We cannot allow the process to be prejudiced by our cherished notions of an ideal cosmology. "

According to these two statements, it is pointless to say that Creationism or Evolution is a product of scientific inquiry, since none of "the phenomena can be reduced to a testable hypothesis".  You can't reproduce the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or even one case of macro evolution, and I can't create the heavens and the earth and all that is within them in six literal days.   Now try convincing the God haters of this, who won't even permit the consideration of Creationism in a public forum without the usual calls of legal action, heckling, and gratuitous insults.    We don't even need to go that far, for instance, your next paragraph is a outright lie and gratuitous insult at all Creationists.

Advocates of creationism or ID seem to fall into two categories. Some don't appreciate that science is as essential to our survival as raising children to be the mature, intelligent and moral adults needed to propagate our species. Then others - often in a paranoid tone - mischaracterize science as a religion or cult, and they typically fixate on the theories of cosmology and evolution as potential threats to their own religious faith and family values.

I can only assume that this statement arises from a projection of your own paranoia, fear of religion, and little appreciation that science is as essential to our survival.   I don't believe for a minute your original statement: "I'm not a scientist, but a student of its development in history and its applications in our world." unless your definition of "student of its development" allows you to only read Scientific American or intellectual dreck from talkorigins.org.     How is it possible for you to be "a student of its [science's] development" and not read about Creationists Sir Frances Bacon, Johannes Kepler,  Robert Boyle, Nicolaus Steno, Sir Issac Newton,  Carolus Linnaeus, Samuel F.D. Morse, James Simpson, Louis Pasteur, Henry Margenau, William Paley, August Friedrich Leopold Weismann... to name a few?

I am further offended by the insult to suggest that Creationists are the antithesis of scientists.  We are not narrowed eyed hill scoggin that marvels at the flashlight as some sort of magical firestick.  After lecturing us on the scientific principle, you turn around, ignore your own words and universally announce all Creationists, by virtue of them being Creationists, as opposed or scared of science.  The ultimate slander is that you completely ignore the beliefs of science's founders and state just the opposite by claiming that Creationists stand in the way of science - imperiling the lives of our children.    These Creationists who you scorn and mischaracterize (presumably for a person vendetta and agenda) are those who were the founders of modern science.   Who in the evolution community has founded a science that benefits mankind based on their evolutionary world view?    You talk about endangering the lives of our children, but it is an evolutionary world view that brings us the death cult of abortion, euthenasia, eugenics, communism, moral relativism, extreme environmentalism, genocide, and the destruction of human rights.

Also, I observe that you are very confused about the place of science and religion in world history.  Even the pagans in Egypt and Central America furthered their studies of the heavens based on their religious beliefs.   The early world based confidence in their finds because they believed that the cosmos had a purpose.   Evolutionary cosmogonists categorically reject purpose and have a world view that must accept in toto an accidental, impersonal, pointless, chaotic universe.   What do you think is a better legacy to pass on to one's children?  A world view that devalues human life and equates it to the same value as a bug, or one that says that all men and women are made in God's image - the very God who created the entire universe.   Who is man that the Creator of all things would take special interest in him?   It is ignorant and desperate to state that evolutionary cosmogony is superior to monotheism due to its dependency on idle speculation.

A great example of natural selection driving beneficial mutation is the common flu virus. Every year we concoct a new vaccine to combat the outbreak, and every year, a new strain finds its way into our bodies from diseased chickens in China every year.

This statement proves the danger in evolutionary thinking.   You accept the contradiction to science that information appears ex nihilo, and that new species of viruses appear out of nothing, or exist out of a beneficial mutation from preceding viruses.  You completely and totally ignore history and science when making this foolish statement.   When Europeans visited the New World, they brought with them diseases of their own country that did not previously exist in the New World.  These people had not developed an immune system (an immune system that defies rational explanation by the evolutionary crowd).   No new virus was formed ex nihilo, no mutation was made to an existing strand; no sheep or dandelion turned into a virus that killed the natives; it was simple exposure to a foreign virus on a people who had no built in immunity to it.   Similar to your chickens from China.

How can a dead fish remain unmolested on the ocean floor and never decompose? I take it you're wondering how science can address the issue of fossils. Well, oceans are big places, and not every deceased fish will draw the attention of a scavenging shark. So over the centuries and eons sediment piles up, and the combined wieght of the water and sediment compress the body, and over a million years perhaps the fish is fossilized.

Another statement based on blind allegiance to a flawed concept.   Do sharks have to be the only hungry critter in the ocean?  There are countless critters in the ocean, not necessarily with fins, nor those that will bite your hook, that feast upon the dead.    It is crazy talk to assume that the ocean is so devoid of life that not one single critter will touch a dead fish for thousands and thousands of years.  It requires a mind that unquestionably accepts Alice's Wonderland to think that there are no processes in the ocean that would separate the fish's bones within thousands of years of open exposure.   Is this science to you?  Blind allegiance to a religious faith, worshipping at the feet of the god of Chance and declaring yourself an accident of birth to an unknown ape who had its origins as lifeless goo?

Ever heard of nucleosynthesis? Essentially, it is a theory - successfully proven by observation

That's total Bravo Sierra.  There is no mechanism for producing heavy metals from energy according to Big Bang.   The best you folks have is a mathematical formula to make hydrogen, but there isn't the consolidated energy to fuse heavy metals.  There is even argument that what we claim to know about the sun's fusion isn't even close to being correct.

It is perfectly clear to me that you have confused "science" with scientists speculating, despite your opening statement.

140 posted on 12/04/2004 10:42:47 AM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: ex-snook
"When the evolutionists explain how the universe evolved then we can pay attention to them."

There are many questions to which I do not know the answer. That lack of information will never prompt me to accept a superstition.

141 posted on 12/04/2004 10:54:10 AM PST by muir_redwoods
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: muir_redwoods

Plus, the biological theory of evolution contains nothing about the evolution of the universe. Thus, he is saying he will never accept the fact of evolution until something else is "proven" to him, but nothing is ever proven so he will believe nothing.

Nihilism is a good thing in purported Christians.


142 posted on 12/04/2004 11:16:02 AM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
So, ThinkPlease, could you think, please? We know that you can try to avoid defending your faith by attacking others, but ad hominems aren't recognized as great alternatives.

Did you, or did you not, lift large parts of the content of your post from: here? There's no assumption that you plagiarized, just a quick hit of Google, and BANG, instant source.

I just want to know, because I can do google searches of whole sentences of your post and find them there, specifically under posts 5 a)-e). Any professor would call that plagiarism, and run you right up to the Dean's Office.

Now for the rest of the story,

It is true that 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is not violated. It is true that according to the that law the universe should be uniform and have a homogeneous and isotropic background radiation. But examination of the cosmos has revealed that we have a "lumpy Big Bang". As a brilliant scientist, no doubt, you are probably quick to throw away Newtonian physics because maintenance of an unprovable theory is tantamount to the ends of erasing God. Under the Creation model, everything works.

First of all, as longshadow noted, the Big Bang was not an explosion. Second of all, we've known about the anisotropy for working on 25 years now, it's a fundamental part of the CMB. It's also not a big bang killer, since we know that physics was obviously different when the universe was dominated by photons, and not matter (which is the time period from when the CMB originates. By the way, the 2Lot says: "Energy spontaneously tends to flow only from being concentrated in one place to becoming diffused or dispersed and spread out. " (From http://www.secondlaw.com/two.html) Now, some people would have you think that an anisotropic universe defies this. Why? Gravity clumps things together. Molecules attract. Other physics on the other side of the CMB take effect. On local scales, things are allowed to flaunt the second law all the time! In a young universe, fledgeling anisotropies can have more of a lever arm on the surrounding matter before the expansion of the universe makes it impossible.

Of course, under the creation model everything works because you just say "God did it." and Wow! It's so! We can close up all of the science departments, close up all the universities because we know the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything, and 42==God. I don't think so. If you are the Biblical Literalist, then I'm sorry to say that you are up a creek, the universe doesn't correspond to the box that you've put God into (namely that the Creation Story is true). (What does God say about limiting what he can do?)

Instead of having all matter appear ex nihilo in one central place in the universe and having it explode in such a way where chaos turns magically into order, we believe, as Scripture plainly states, that the stars and planets were put into place for a purpose and that is to determine signs and seasons. Under intelligent design, it should be expected that the universe is not uniform. Because we are told that the stars were put into their place we should expect a "lumpy universe" in accordance to accomplishing the goals of providing signs and seasons.

(P.S. There is no center of the universe.) Oh, so are you a member of the Church of Last Thursdayism? I haven't seen one of those in a long time! It so happens that I am too, except in my religion the Universe really was created Last Thursday...by my cats. It's a great bargain, I appease them with much food and scritches, and they don't end the universe arbitrarily. It's a great deal. (Though I'm not sure I believe such a thing, after all, why would the creators lie to me by making up all of these clues out of whole cloth, while actually just creating the universe some other way? I'm not sure I trust gods who would do such a thing. Oh well, just better feed them and scritch them, just in case!)

In short, we don't have a contradiction. You do, by the mere fact you have anisotropic universe and a theory that requires scientists to abandon well understood physical laws. We have a beautiful universe, masterfully and wonderfully made, you have an ugly accident that defies explanation. Why is this important? Because as Creationists, we believe that there is a purpose to the order in which we see. Because we believe that there is purpose, we can rely on those things which we discover to be true. As God haters, you can't even trust natural laws anymore. You look at the 2nd Law and see it as an impediment to your faith. You can't even trust your own findings to be true.

Of course, in your universe, all is harmonious, because Hey! God did it! and that means we don't have to figure things out, because God did it and all is harmonius! That's a great circular argument, and there's a reason why it was abandoned...4 centuries ago. That's a really specious argument. The scientific universe is just as wondrous, and very rewarding, as we figure out more and more of the knotty problems out there. If we had gone about it your way, I doubt we'd be having this conversation, the technolgy for the internet would never have been developed. We could have the great comforts of 19th century civilization, right down to the influenza and the plague epidemics! Great fun!

But I'm getting off message here. The bottom line is that the universe isn't harmonious when you look into it. You seem to suffer under the misconception that scientists seek to discover what is true. That's not the case. Science seeks to discover the closest approximation of physical processes.

My initial reaction was what does a snowflake have in common with the Big Bang?

Pretty simple...both "disregard" the 2Lot. You were babbling about how the BB theory disregarded the 2nd law, and I want to see if you are on your toes....after all the universe creates order locally ALL THE TIME! From star formation to snowflakes, entropy is decreased on a local scale temporarily to allow the formation of larger objects before disorder is allowed to take over again. I don't suppose that occurs in your "beautiful" universe, does it?

So to sum up:

"God did it" is boring.

There is no center of the universe.

The Big Bang was not an explosion.

Last Thursdayism sucks. (So does it's equivalent when Creationists think them up).

The Second Law doesn't always act on local scales. Order CAN come from disorder.

It doesn't matter if Big Bang theory is harmonious or beautiful, it just has to best explain the universe that we see better than anything else. It does that. I would love to see a scientific theory of ID, if one existed. I have yet to see one, and am beginning to doubt I ever will. I'm instead beginning to think we'll see nothing but legal challenges instead.

143 posted on 12/04/2004 12:25:04 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Creationists lifting material wholesale from other places and passing it off as their own? Surely not - that would be completely unprecedented! Shock, horror, et cetera, et cetera...

;)

144 posted on 12/04/2004 12:29:27 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: ThinkPlease
Did you, or did you not, lift large parts of the content of your post from: here?

Absolutely not. I have never read that document prior to your posting it.

If you persist with your vicious libel, I will forward this post of yours to the Administrator demanding some sort of action for your inexcusable behavior.

145 posted on 12/04/2004 12:38:50 PM PST by Reuben Hick
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick

Oh for pete sake.
You have been posting crap from the beginning. Lighten up.


146 posted on 12/04/2004 12:51:36 PM PST by shubi (Peace through superior firepower.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
You are definitely under some fundamental misunderstandings here:

According to these two statements, it is pointless to say that Creationism or Evolution is a product of scientific inquiry, since none of "the phenomena can be reduced to a testable hypothesis". You can't reproduce the Big Bang, abiogenesis, or even one case of macro evolution, and I can't create the heavens and the earth and all that is within them in six literal days.

Nonsense. Just because we lack the technology to accurately reproduce such a thing, doesn't mean we should throw the theory out. No, instead, we craft theories on aspects of the theory we CAN test, and go from there. It can be something as simple as: "Computer models based on local physics say that any galaxies of redshift z=3 will have the following properties: They will be undergoing violent star formation, they will be highly irregular, and they will have bluer stars than galaxies at redshifts of z=1 (older galaxies). They then go to the telescope, obtain said data, and compare their observations to the models. The process continues ad-infinitum. I see this occurring every day as a valid application of the scientific method, and the fundamental aspects of the Big Bang theory remain unchanged from the results of these observations.

That's total Bravo Sierra. There is no mechanism for producing heavy metals from energy according to Big Bang. The best you folks have is a mathematical formula to make hydrogen, but there isn't the consolidated energy to fuse heavy metals. There is even argument that what we claim to know about the sun's fusion isn't even close to being correct.

It is you who are spouting BS. Give me a break. Any student of an undergraduate astronomy program knows better. Even students of a physics curriculum know better! There are books and books of tables and tables of fusion reactions that we have SEEN (yes SEEN) occur in experiments here on Earth. For example, you take two 511KeV photons,and voila, you have an electron and an anti electron. This reaction has been seen on earth, and also has been seen in space near distant galaxies in the X-ray spectrum. Likewise, two photons of a certain energy combine to create a proton and anti-proton.

In the BB model, the early universe was so compact, that the universe was extremely hot (hotter than any phoenomenon we see today). At that temperature it was so hot that matter couldn't exist for very long, photons were so energetic that they could create protons and electrons, but they would strike an anti-particle and because photons again. At some point, as the universe expanded, the universe cooled (constant energy in a larger space), and finally it was cold enough that much of the photons condensed into matter, much of which was simple electrons and protons. (The universe decoupled matter from energy) As the universe cooled further, things cooled enough for hydrogen to form, and some helium and deuterium).

From there, just let gravity take over, and you get stars. Fusion reactions take over from there (which have been seen in bombs and reactions (at least up to Carbon) all over the planet)). The Proton-Proton chain takes you from Hydrogen to Helium, the triple alpha cycle takes you from Helium to Carbon, and in larger and larger stars, it gets hot enough to be able to fuse Carbon and Helium into Oxygen, Oxygen and helium into Neon, Neon and Helium into Magnesium, and so on. There are fusion reactions (according to the chemists) all the way up to Fe that creates energy for the star to use to keep alive, but at Iron, there are no reactions that give energy, but instead take energy. So the supernova collapses, which releases the iron and all sorts of free energy to react with Iron to make other elements. So, as you can see, the Big Bang can manufacture the necessary elements.

(See Anders, E. and Grevesse, N., Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 53, 197 (1989). for a very complete list of modes of nucleosynthesis in the universe).

147 posted on 12/04/2004 1:07:59 PM PST by ThinkPlease (Fortune Favors the Bold!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: Reuben Hick
LOL.

Let's go back to the tape for an instant replay. Everyone mind the bolded portions now. You wrote:

1. The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter/energy of the cosmos out radially from its center, and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there are all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of the stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang.

THEY wrote:

(a) The primordial explosion should have propelled all the matter and energy of the cosmos out radially from its center, and by the principle of conservation of angular momentum, none of it could ever thereafter have acquired any kind of curvilinear motion. Yet there all kinds of curving and orbiting motions of stars and galaxies of the cosmos, a situation that seems quite impossible if the universe began with the Big Bang

You wrote:

2. Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is anisotropic in all directions.

THEY wrote:

(b) Sensitive measurements in recent years have increasingly been showing that the background radiation is not homogeneous and isotropic (that is, the same in all directions), as it should be if it had been produced by the Big Bang, but is “anisotropic” in all directions.

You wrote:

3. The universe is anything but uniform in large-scale structure, as both the Big Bang and Steady State theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos in far from any uniform manner. Some astronomers are now trying somehow to to imagine a primeval lumpy Big Bang.

They wrote:

(c) The universe is anything but uniform, as the big bang theories require, but instead is full of huge agglomerations of matter in some regions and vast empty spaces in others, scattered around the cosmos and far from any uniform manner.

You wrote:

4. In the context of the primeval fireball it is hard to justify the accumulation of any amount of matter in any one location such as a star. If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together in galaxies?

THEY wrote:

(d) If the explosion is driving all galaxies apart in the resulting expansion, how could it fail to drive all atoms apart before they came together into galaxies?

You wrote:

5. And saving the best for last, the most serious objection comes back to the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order. The primordial superexplosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder. If the universe is indeed a closed system as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?

They wrote:

(e) The most serious objection comes back again to the second law of thermodynamics. Explosions produce disorder, not order! The primordial super explosion surely would have produced absolute chaos and the most utter disorder. If the universe is indeed a closed system, as evolutionary cosmogonists allege, then how in the name of sense and science, could this primeval chaotic disorder have possibly generated the beautifully organized and complexly ordered universe that we now have?

Give it up, man - you're busted. F-minus.

148 posted on 12/04/2004 1:23:26 PM PST by general_re ("What's plausible to you is unimportant." - D'man)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: general_re; ThinkPlease
A plagiarist in denial. Creation science is a symphony of brazen offenses blandly denied and endlessly repeated.
149 posted on 12/04/2004 1:30:11 PM PST by VadeRetro (Nothing means anything when you go to Hell for knowing what things mean.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: VadeRetro; general_re; ThinkPlease
Creationism means never having to say you're sorry.

150 posted on 12/04/2004 1:40:51 PM PST by PatrickHenry (The List-O-Links for evolution threads is at my freeper homepage.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 1,001-1,048 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson