# Evolution Vs Creationism



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

Anyone want to participate?  What do people think about this recent drive toward creationism in our schools?  What do you think of this site?

http://www.icr.org/

Are there any creationists out there?

John


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 11, 2003)

I haven't seen the site (yet) but I consider myself a Creationist/evoluntionist. Mainly because I see that the "day" quoted in the bible (KJV) can equal to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to us. Thus as God was creating things were evolving... they still are... even man.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 11, 2003)

Oh yeah...these are the guys who apparently have a painting in their lobby showing one of Noah's sons feeding the animals...including, it seems, a stegosaur.

Is there a smiley face for complete stupidity?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Oh yeah...these are the guys who apparently have a painting in their lobby showing one of Noah's sons feeding the animals...including, it seems, a stegosaur.
> 
> Is there a smiley face for complete stupidity? *



 unfortunatily...I couldn't find a smiley face for complete stupidity....


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

Scientifically, there is no support for the explanation that God intervened at all with evolution.  It is absolutely untestable.  The anthropic principle stands on faith alone and is completely inductive.


----------



## MA-Caver (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Scientifically, there is no support for the explanation that God intervened at all with evolution.  It is absolutely untestable.  The anthropic principle stands on faith alone and is completely inductive. *



Well that's because *sometimes* science doesn't recoginize God. 
But to my own personal beliefs God created these things and then allowed them to evolve on their own in their own time over the course of millions of years. 
As for Dinosaurs... I believe they were also part of God's creation(s) but they lived out their span that he intended for them... or that (as some believe) they evolved themselves into something else. Birds? Smaller versions of reptiles? Who knows? 

Mebbe my beliefs are too simplistic for science and aren't going to hold up to scrutinity but far as I'm concerned that doesn't really help out in my own personal salvation. It just confirms things that I know base on faith alone, anthropic or not. 

:asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 11, 2003)

MACaver

I believe in God.  I posted the bit about the anthropic principle to show that religion and science tread different territories.  The only thing I see when they cross over is conflict.

John


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *MACaver
> 
> I believe in God.  I posted the bit about the anthropic principle to show that religion and science tread different territories.  The only thing I see when they cross over is conflict.
> ...


We've got this guy named Chuck Missler in Idaho. He talks about how the speed of light is not constant but subject to fluctuations in gravity and energy. If this is the case, our concepts of the age of the universe can not be proven either. He can almost convince me; so, I'm sure some of you might be bowled over. His theories about the flood are down right entertaining. He claims that the flood occured because Fallen Angels mated with humans and created Mythical beasts such as Goliath, Heraclease, and the Titans. I could listen to this guy talk all day and not get bored.
Sean


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 11, 2003)

About 7 years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) were on a vacation to Washington DC. We were touring the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We were standing by one of the diorama's of early humans around a fire pit. We almost couldn't believe it when a man a bit older than we were (early 30's) told a youngster with him (I am assuming his son) that "This never happened. It is all made up. God created Man".

Now, this wasn't an image of men walking with dinosaurs. It was just a tribal setting from perhaps 25,000 years ago. And this fellow visitor to the Smithsonian was teaching the youth that history isn't real. 

That absolute literal translation of the bible is still being taught and believed in our country. There is not enough skepticism in our world. And too many of us do not understand that Science is self correcting ... whereas Faith is not.

Mike

P.S. The web site is garbage ... the article I read treated Noah and the Flood as fact when discussing how DNA can store and disperse the genetic material after such a catastrophic event. By treating DNA as fact, in the same sentence as treating 'The Flood' as fact belies any credibility.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *About 7 years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) were on a vacation to Washington DC. We were touring the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We were standing by one of the diorama's of early humans around a fire pit. We almost couldn't believe it when a man a bit older than we were (early 30's) told a youngster with him (I am assuming his son) that "This never happened. It is all made up. God created Man".
> 
> Now, this wasn't an image of men walking with dinosaurs. It was just a tribal setting from perhaps 25,000 years ago. And this fellow visitor to the Smithsonian was teaching the youth that history isn't real.
> ...


 You have got to realize that man was created roughly ten thousand years ago at precisly 9:00 AM :shrug:  Just kidding. However we have the most ill concieved notion of early man. First of all, they had a better diet and actualy did live longer. Secondly, and this is what I find most interesting, the language they used was by far more complex than ours. Precision of thought meant life or death. Even the Eskimos (Inuit) have about sixty words for snow, yet we continualy dumb down fully confident we are the most advanced peoples to ever walk the earth. My point is that the whole "ugh ugh err err" caveman mentality is absolutly false. Of course their are other races of man like creatures that fit this profile but they aren't  exactly are ancestors.
Sean


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 11, 2003)

OK, so some guy decides that a lot of animals look like each other and there for must have turned into each other over time. Ya, sounds like a real nifty idea.

So if I follow this logic, we all came from the same kind of single celled creature millions and billions(?) of years ago? WOW! What are the odds of that?? It's so neat knowing we're the only fluke in the universe.

I heard the Pilgrims thought snakes came from sticks. Quick, somebody call National Geographic!


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

Hi Mike

Good post.  Thanks for taking the other side.  In a few words, you pointed out a major problem with the theory of evolution.  How did life start?

John


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

> So if I follow this logic, we all came from the same kind of single celled creature millions and billions(?) of years ago? WOW! What are the odds of that?? It's so neat knowing we're the only fluke in the universe.



Or ... amenio acids combined to form proteins in many different places around the globe some 3.5 to 4 BILLION years ago, and they all were subject to mutation and natural selection and time allowed them to evolve.

The odds are astronomically large. Fortuneately, hitting the odds requires only 2 things, repeated attemps and time. Amongst the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies that have existed for the past 15 to 20 billion years, *we've* had a pretty good run.

You're use of the word Fluke seems to intend an 'accident' (at least I hope you don't mean the dictionary definition of 'flatfish'). No reasoned thinker could possibly come to the conclusion that homo sapiens are an accident of the universe. We are a part of the universe, drawn from all of that which has come before us, and all of the powers in the universe acting upon that which preceded us.

It is so much more reasonable to say that 'God created a garden, and pulled a man (that spoke Kings English perfectly) out of the mud, and pulled woman from the mans rib'.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

Bubble Theory (I know it sounds corny) states that the primordial soup turned out the parts of the biological molecules we need for life.  These were various protiens and amino acids.  These particals, in solution were carried to the surface of the soup in bubbles.  When the bubbles reached the surface, they popped and cast their contents into the atmosphere.  Here, they are incorporated into storm clouds and chemical bonds are formed as the static electricity excites the electrons of the bio molecules.  These larger molecules act as condesation nuclei for droplets and they fall back into the soup.  Here,  they pick up more peices of amino acids and other organic compounds in solution and are brought back to the surface in bubbles.  Then the cycle begins anew.  This is the current theory regarding molecular evolution.  It is believed that the cyclic nature of this theory would circumvent the astronomical odds that life would self assemble under random mechanisms.

John


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *
> 
> It is so much more reasonable to say that 'God created a garden, and pulled a man (that spoke Kings English perfectly) out of the mud, and pulled woman from the mans rib'. *



That's obviously debateable. But both schools of thought are just that, beliefs. But we know which one is taught in schools.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

Thought I'd jump in about now...



> Anyone want to participate? What do people think about this recent drive toward creationism in our schools?



I was unaware of any "recent drive toward creationism" in the school system, but if I were to make a guess, I'd say (assuming it is true) that its probably some kind of political backlash from the neo-conservatives in this country.



> What do you think of this site?



Pseudo-science, plain and simple. These guys are attempting to use the tools of science to prove or justify their religious beliefs. They already have in their heads what they believe the "conclusion" to the experiment or observation should be. Last time I checked, the conclusion is the final stage of the scientific method; not the first.

Thus, pseudo-science.



> Are there any creationists out there?



Depends on your definition.



> I haven't seen the site (yet) but I consider myself a Creationist/evoluntionist. Mainly because I see that the "day" quoted in the bible (KJV) can equal to hundreds of thousands to millions of years to us.



In my opinion, and I mean no offense by this, the major problem with that position is that it is heavily revisionistic. Some people have a tendency to project modern scientific knowledge and discoveries onto the "ancients' writings". They are, in essence, revising the common understanding of these texts to fit in with our modernist worldviews.

The dilemma is that _no one_ that read the Bible up til the time evolutionary theory was highly refined would have interpreted one of the "days" as meaning anything other than a single solar day --- including the earliest readers of the text and probably the authors themselves. They all thought it was just a regular ol' day. Then, suddenly, when we find out the universe is actually *billions* of years old, some then decide that each "day" _really_ means an epoch or era. Curiously, however, these ideas of God creating the universe via evolution were _never_ articulated until science had _already_ explained what evolution was in the first place!!

This, in my opinion, also has a slight tinge of pseudo-science --- but it is an understandable position.



> Oh yeah...these are the guys who apparently have a painting in their lobby showing one of Noah's sons feeding the animals...including, it seems, a stegosaur.



Yep. Almost as ridiculous as those "sculpts" of human footprints-within-a-dinosaur's. The joys of scientific creationism are endless.  



> Scientifically, there is no support for the explanation that God intervened at all with evolution. It is absolutely untestable. The anthropic principle stands on faith alone and is completely inductive.



This assumes that the creation of humankind required some kind of special intervention in the first place. Who's to say that evolution itself is simply not "God-in-action" (so to speak), thus completely negating the need for a special intervention (what, God's gonna intervene on himself??)??? 



> Well that's because *sometimes* science doesn't recoginize God.



Well, the scientific community (as an academic field) doesn't recognize "God" as a scientific "fact" at all. However, there are many individuals within that community that do believe in God; this is usually independent of their careers as scientists, though.



> Mebbe my beliefs are too simplistic for science and aren't going to hold up to scrutinity but far as I'm concerned that doesn't really help out in my own personal salvation. It just confirms things that I know base on faith alone, anthropic or not.



Technically speaking, you don't "know" anything based on faith. You believe based on faith.



> About 7 years ago, my then girlfriend (now wife) were on a vacation to Washington DC. We were touring the Smithsonian Museum of Natural History. We were standing by one of the diorama's of early humans around a fire pit. We almost couldn't believe it when a man a bit older than we were (early 30's) told a youngster with him (I am assuming his son) that "This never happened. It is all made up. God created Man".



That really isn't that surprising. Many people in the world still think like that.



> That absolute literal translation of the bible is still being taught and believed in our country.



Its being taught in a lot of other countries, too.  



> And too many of us do not understand that Science is self correcting ... whereas Faith is not.



He's got a point there.



> P.S. The web site is garbage ... the article I read treated Noah and the Flood as fact when discussing how DNA can store and disperse the genetic material after such a catastrophic event. By treating DNA as fact, in the same sentence as treating 'The Flood' as fact belies any credibility.



I'm inclined to agree.



> However we have the most ill concieved notion of early man. First of all, they had a better diet and actualy did live longer.



This must be your own pet hypothesis, then, because I've taken numerous anthropology and biology classes and none of my professors expressed that kind of idea.

Regarding diet, early man usually went long periods of time without eating at all. When they managed to kill (or find) a large animal, they would usually gorge themselves and then go for more periods of time without eating. I doubt that was very healthy.

Regarding the lifespans, its fairly evident the further back we go the shorter people actually lived. Particularly, considering all the diseases (hee: no medicine yet) and chaotic elements they had to deal with.



> Secondly, and this is what I find most interesting, the language they used was by far more complex than ours.



This is also a false assumption. Comparing homo sapien sapiens to our earlier ancestors gives ready proof that we have a higher level of communication developed.



> Even the Eskimos (Inuit) have about sixty words for snow



The Inuit aren't "early man" they are a still-existing homo sapien culture.  



> yet we continualy dumb down fully confident we are the most advanced peoples to ever walk the earth.



Yes, and we have numerous words for a single concept as well (often things like money, sex, and violence). So what??

These are cultural differences on the horizontal scale that do not prove a "higher" level of communication one way or another. Also, for all your claims that the Inuit have a "higher language" than us, they were not the ones that established a worldwide informational "web" (which you're using right now).



> My point is that the whole "ugh ugh err err" caveman mentality is absolutly false.



I suggest taking some anthropology courses, friend. The Inuit are not cavemen.

 And, also, that mentality is quite accurate (when compared to our own understanding of language). Although, it does become overtly caricaturized by the media.



> OK, so some guy decides that a lot of animals look like each other and there for must have turned into each other over time. Ya, sounds like a real nifty idea.



You obvioulsy have a very limited understanding of the scientific method, or the particular evidence used to support evolutionary theory.



> No reasoned thinker could possibly come to the conclusion that homo sapiens are an accident of the universe. We are a part of the universe, drawn from all of that which has come before us, and all of the powers in the universe acting upon that which preceded us.



*nods* Yes, I agree.  

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> That's obviously debateable. But both schools of thought are just that, beliefs. But we know which one is taught in schools.



There's a reason for that.

The name of the course that is taken is biology, not religion. Thus, you teach biological theories, not religious theology.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

The fundamental elements religion cannot be tested and therefore can never be science.  Science, although it requires an amount of faith, is testable and falsifyable.  

If you don't like something, go out and find the evidence against it.  If you can't it doesn't matter if you don't like it, the theory stands no matter how unpalatable it is.  

Which brings me to the concept of scientific creationism.  Totally untestable.  Every mechanism we see that could cause evolution has a theory which lays out a natural mechanism.  Postulating that these natural mechanisms are the work of God's creation is a null statement as far as science is concerned.  

Besides, supposing that the above statement is true and that God is "sentient and good" there are alot of things in which God could be called into account.  One being the Permian extinction.  90% of all life vanished from the face of the Earth.  Doesn't sound like good to me...(there are some logical problems with this thought, but I'll throw it in and see what happens.)


----------



## Touch Of Death (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *
> This must be your own pet hypothesis, then, because I've taken numerous anthropology and biology classes and none of my professors expressed that kind of idea.
> 
> ...


So the invention of the internet means we are more complex thinkers. Thats a crock. We have a complex society so people can think as little or as much as they want. You should meet some of the people I work with; so , the less advanced a society the more advanced its language must be to insure survival. Secondly, when I refer to cave men I am talking about homo sapiens, not some ape like creature the scientific community names as early man yet finds out later that a group like the Neandrathal actualy coexisted with homosapiens. That little thing called the agricultural revolution was less nutricious(sp) than what people ate before and life spans decreased and disease actualy increased. And I see you are suggesting they had no knowledge of medicinal herbs. You know I took a cultural anthropology course, All your physical stuff is purly theory and not fact. The Inuit are  about as  close to cave men as we have right now and I doubt the northern peoples lived much differently back then. Since this a Martial arts web site I'll bet the Martial arts were studied very carefully as well; but, the Daruma story is what everyone likes to go with. I think its happened over and over again through out the Milinea.
Sean


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> The fundamental elements religion cannot be tested and therefore can never be science. Science, although it requires an amount of faith, is testable and falsifyable.



Well, that depends on your definitions of both "science" and "religion". Suffice to say, some aspects of religion can indeed by validated/invalidated by some aspects of science.



> If you don't like something, go out and find the evidence against it. If you can't it doesn't matter if you don't like it, the theory stands no matter how unpalatable it is.



Yup.



> Which brings me to the concept of scientific creationism. Totally untestable. Every mechanism we see that could cause evolution has a theory which lays out a natural mechanism. Postulating that these natural mechanisms are the work of God's creation is a null statement as far as science is concerned.



I guess so.



> Besides, supposing that the above statement is true and that God is "sentient and good" there are alot of things in which God could be called into account. One being the Permian extinction. 90% of all life vanished from the face of the Earth. Doesn't sound like good to me...(there are some logical problems with this thought, but I'll throw it in and see what happens.)



Suppose so. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> So the invention of the internet means we are more complex thinkers. Thats a crock.



Actually, no its not. The notion of a holistic informational network (even if its reductionistic/materialistic) is, within its own line of development, extremely advanced.

In any event, you seem to be talking about the notion of cultural evolution --- which is something of a different subject altogether. Yes, a postindustrial/multicultural society is more "advanced" than a group of hunter-gatherers. That doesn't necessarily mean either is "better", though.



> We have a complex society so people can think as little or as much as they want.



Its called "pluralism". Something the Inuit in question, which like similar societies are extremely ethnocentric, do not possess.



> the less advanced a society the more advanced its language must be to insure survival.



*chuckles* This is a new one to me. Maybe you should provide your hypothesis to the anthropological community and see what they think.  



> Secondly, when I refer to cave men I am talking about homo sapiens, not some ape like creature the scientific community names as early man yet finds out later that a group like the Neandrathal actualy coexisted with homosapiens.



Then you are using a definition of "cave men" that only you subscribe to.



> That little thing called the agriculteral revolution was less nutricious(sp) than what people ate before and life spans decreased and disease actualy increased.



*chuckles* Sources, please.  



> And I see you are suggesting they had no knowledge of medicinal herbs.



Not compared to later societies, no.



> You know I took a cultural anthropology course



Good for you. I took a chemistry class, that must mean I'm an expert chemist now.  



> All your physical stuff is purly theory and not fact.



Ummm.... there are no "facts" in science.  



> The Inuit are about as close to cave men as we have right now and I doubt the northern peoples lived much differently back then.



These are both assumptions based on your personal opinions, without any empirical evidence to back them up.



> Since this a Martial arts web site I'll bet the Martial arts were studied very carefully as well; but, the Daruma story is what everyone likes to go with. I think its happened over and over again through out the Milinea.



What?! :mst: 

Ummmm..... laterz.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *That's obviously debateable. But both schools of thought are just that, beliefs. But we know which one is taught in schools. *



Actually no.  There's no debate whatsoever.  Creationism is a set of beliefs.  Evolution is a fact and is supported by centuries of observations and experimentation.  The Theory of Evolution is our attempt to explain how evolution happened, and is constantly being revised and adjusted based on continued observation and experimentation.  There is no debate.  This whole argument is a political, not scientific one.  The folks pushing creationism are doing it because they want the government teaching their religion to everyone's children.  They do not accept the responsibility of teaching their own religion on a personal level.

See www.talkorigins.org


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *The fundamental elements religion cannot be tested and therefore can never be science.  Science, although it requires an amount of faith, is testable and falsifyable.
> 
> If you don't like something, go out and find the evidence against it.  If you can't it doesn't matter if you don't like it, the theory stands no matter how unpalatable it is.
> ...



Uh-uh.  Science requires no faith.  It either works or it doesn't, regardless of belief.  If you jump off a cliff, you'll fall, whether you belive in gravity or not.  The rest of what you said I'd agree with.

"But wait - we don't know how gravity works yet, therefore science is wrong!!"

Me:  How does gravity work?
Scientist:  We don't know yet, but we're working on it.  We've got a few ideas that we're playing around with and trying to verify or falsify.
Creationist:  Goddidit!  Give me money so I can pass a law to force schools to stop teaching the atheistic-satanic eeevilution to our poor defenseless children.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Actually no.  There's no debate whatsoever.  Creationism is a set of beliefs.  Evolution is a fact and is supported by centuries of observations and experimentation.  The Theory of Evolution is our attempt to explain how evolution happened, and is constantly being revised and adjusted based on continued observation and experimentation.  There is no debate.  This whole argument is a political, not scientific one.  The folks pushing creationism are doing it because they want the government teaching their religion to everyone's children.  They do not accept the responsibility of teaching their own religion on a personal level.
> 
> See www.talkorigins.org *



No. I don't see it that way. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Just as there are geometrical theorems, such as a^2 + b^2 = c^2.

Once something has become accepted enough, or demonstrably proven to be accurate, it is accepted as a proof, or fact. Nobody has proven evolution. There has been a lot of observations, and has since been rammed down our throats in the name of science, but nobody is going to prove the age of the earth or what animals lived there and what they "turned into." They cannot even agree amongst themselves how it all got started. So there is no 1 evolution theory either, just as there are many creation beliefs.

The arguement is also not political, as you would hope it to be. It's a sign of weakness when people have to band together behind a name when they can't feel confident enough with their own beliefs. I have mentioned no political affiliation.

People "pushing" creationism would be different than those teaching it/learning it from friends and family. There are extremists in almost every cause.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Uh-uh.  Science requires no faith.  It either works or it doesn't, regardless of belief.  If you jump off a cliff, you'll fall, whether you belive in gravity or not.  The rest of what you said I'd agree with.
> 
> "But wait - we don't know how gravity works yet, therefore science is wrong!!"
> ...



Ignorance, pure ignorance. You may as well drop off the thread.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by heretic888 _
> *There's a reason for that.
> 
> The name of the course that is taken is biology, not religion. Thus, you teach biological theories, not religious theology. *



Ya, like I didn't know the difference. The problem with your line of thought is that schools cannot offer both classes.

"A mind is like a parachute. It's only usefull when it's open."


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> Ya, like I didn't know the difference. The problem with your line of thought is that schools cannot offer both classes.



Well, if we're talking about public schools here then the only way it could work is if it was a Comparitive Religion class or the like. Or, an elective.

I never said they couldn't offer both, just not in a biology class.



> "A mind is like a parachute. It's only usefull when it's open."



Oooh, that's a good one. *writes it down*

Laterz.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

Well, I can't really take credit for the quote, but if you were a Parker Kenpo student it might have rung a bell. But the I looked in your profile and didn't really see any arts studied..hmm...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2003)

I am sorry, Mike, but several of your statements simply aren't correct. Not only is the age of the earth pretty well established, not only is it pretty much as solid as anything in science, but a million years one way or another aren't going to help creationist belief very much.

The problem is this. If you're going to argue the science, then you have to play by the rules of science. You can't pick and choose what you want, just to preserve another belief system. And science is by definition a materialism, which means that God is simply beside the point. Doesn't appear on the radar screen. (One wonders about stealth technology...) "Does God exist?" simply isn't a scientific question, because there's no way to provide the sort of generation-of-hypothesis-and-test-against-material-reality-then-retest pattern of science. Or to paraphrase Sagan et al, the problem is that the beliefs of religion are--by definition--not falsifiable, which means that you cannot test them and prove them wrong by aany meeans whatsoever.

Now religious ways of seeing are, in their way, every bit as good as science. They're simply different. Problem is that some science, and something about the whole approach of science, runs smack into some aspects of religion. Skepticism and testing, for examplee, runs counter to the whole idea of faith.

Personally, I think that science takes the rap for capitalism. By that I mean to say that many religious (and let's be clear--for, "religious," read, "Christian and fundamentalist") people are pissed off (and they probably should be) by many aspects of the modern world. However, their analysis doesn't focus on an economic system that, sorry, as Marx said, makes, "everything solid melt into air," but on scientific theories like evolution. If you listen to, say, Pat Robertson, you'll hear why--it's because his ideology is strongly pro-capitalist, and he doesn't want to examine those premises. 

Personally, I don't get why there's such a big hassle over this. The Catholic Church, for example, has simply gone back to an old argument: God, the Author of all things, has left us two books to study: the Bible, and Nature. Reading them both is part of what we're here for. If the two books appear to contradict one another, that's not God's fault, it's not the Bible, it's not Nature--it's a mark of our limited understanding. Genesis and Darwin, that is, go together perfectly well--we're just too thick to see how. 

Budddhism seems to have an even easier time, because Budddhism doesn't postulate that either God or our ape origins are relevant to religious and moral questions--unless we start fetishizing God or the soul or whatever, in which case we'd best be prepared to deal with having our fetishizations exposed as nonsense.

It's just Spencer Tracy slapping the Bible and 
Origin of Species," together at the end of "Inherit the Wind," and walking out of the courthouse, is all I'm saying.

Incidentally, it is completely inaccurate to claim that teachers cannot teach both Darwin and the basic theories of religions in schools. I do it all the time...and frankly, I'm at least as appalled by some student's ignorance of their own religions (to say nothing of others!) as I am by their ignorance of Darwin...the ONLY prohibition is that you're not allowed to jam your own beliefs down students' throats...

Thanks for the discussion.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

Gravity, on the quantum level, is not reliable.  Sub-atomic particles are completely unaffected at times.  Faith in the "law of gravity" masked this little secret.  Also, it is theorized that the particle that carries the force of gravity is called the graviton.  This has never been tested or observed directly or indirectly.  Scientists accept this theory on the "belief" that one day it will be found.

Mike

Evolution is a theory, I agree.  The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is quite substantial.  There are not multiple theories of evolution, though - unless you count Rupert Sheldrake's!  There are multiple theories on the mechanisms that cause evolution.  Punctuated equiplibria and natural selection are the two most popular theories.  As far as your comments about animals turning into other animals, that is not what evolution describes.  Species go extinct and new species arise from the results of environmental pressure.  Nothing is turning into anything.

John


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

That's all pretty good Robert, from what I could understand of it, but we know science can be wrong because it is made from rules that humans create. Nobody is really going to be able to prove how old this piece of rock is. "Pretty well" and "pretty close" just don't cut it.

But it is taught as undisputeable fact in schools. That's where I disagree, and my only point to be made on this thread.

I find some aspects of science astonishing. For instnace, how things from the largest to the tiniest in this universe all behave the same. By that, I'm referring to the orbit of planets and the orbit of electrons. I'd like to think that through science we could come to realize some incredible universal laws. But I think that it is there for our enjyoment, not to reverse engineer and make clone babies with.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> And science is by definition a materialism, which means that God is simply beside the point.



That's not quite true --- at least not the materialistic part. Science is empiricist, but not necessarily reductionist.

Many of the sciences study non-material phenomena (psychology, anthropology, mathematics, sociology, logic, etc etc...) but are completely valid. And even the "hard sciences" use incredibly non-material tools and functions for study, unless you're going to show me the square root of -1 in the "real" world out there.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

Robert

Actually the flow of energy in biological systems very much mimics the flow of money in economic systems.  The equations that describe these phenomena are nearly identical.  With that being said, what do you think about the thought that capitolism is evolutionary in that it ascribes to the concept of "survival of the fittest?"


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

It is theorized that the square root of -1 describes numbers in parellel universes.  In Young's double slit experiment, when you allow one photon at a time pass randomly through the slits, you would think you'd get only two spectral lines.  Instead, you get an entire diffractive pattern.  This phenomenon has been described as both the particle and wave nature of a photon.  It is theorized that this phenomenon is only possible from the interaction of photons from parellel universes.  Imaginary numbers help describe this theory.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> That's all pretty good Robert, from what I could understand of it, but we know science can be wrong because it is made from rules that humans create.



That's a completely irrational justification. That would be like saying "this psychological test studying the psyches of pregnant women is inherently questionable because it was designed by a man". That kind of argument is absurd. Look at the test itself, and not the person that made it.



> Nobody is really going to be able to prove how old this piece of rock is. "Pretty well" and "pretty close" just don't cut it.



Not to you, maybe. But your viewpoint sounds incredibly black-and-white on the matter. There is a reason why we have probabilities and likelihoods in science.

I would say knowing how old that rock is within a 98.9% certainty level is "good enough".



> But it is taught as undisputeable fact in schools. That's where I disagree, and my only point to be made on this thread.



That's funny, because I was taught that "facts", per se, do not exist in science. Although, I can understand how certain individuals might regard certain theories as "facts"...



> I find some aspects of science astonishing. For instnace, how things from the largest to the tiniest in this universe all behave the same. By that, I'm referring to the orbit of planets and the orbit of electrons. I'd like to think that through science we could come to realize some incredible universal laws. But I think that it is there for our enjyoment, not to reverse engineer and make clone babies with.



Science is there to do whatever with it the individual chooses. Its there to discover new possibilities and make discoveries. Some are good, some are bad. Science itself, however, is neutral.



> Actually the flow of energy in biological systems very much mimics the flow of money in economic systems. The equations that describe these phenomena are nearly identical. With that being said, what do you think about the thought that capitolism is evolutionary in that it ascribes to the concept of "survival of the fittest?"



I don't think that "survival of the fittest" bit applies to either biology or economics, considering a sociologist was the one that coined the phrase.  

If capitalism was so "Darwinian" then why are there establishments within capitalistic societies intended to benefit the disenfranchised... including social security, medicare, welfare, etc etc??



> Imaginary numbers help describe this theory.



Thus a non-material phenomena (mathematical imaginary number) helps find out information about a material phenomena (a particular field of physics). Very interesting.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

> It's a sign of weakness when people have to band together behind a name when they can't feel confident enough with their own beliefs.



Like people who hide behind the name Jesus?


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *No. I don't see it that way. Evolution is a theory, not fact. Just as there are geometrical theorems, such as a^2 + b^2 = c^2.
> *



How you see it isn't actually relevant to the issue.  Evolution is an observed fact.  You really need to read up on this if you want to discuss it in the same terms that are generally used by the scientific community.  This is, after all, a science issue. 




> *
> Once something has become accepted enough, or demonstrably proven to be accurate, it is accepted as a proof, or fact.
> *



That is correct.  Thus, we have evolution.



> *
> Nobody has proven evolution. There has been a lot of observations, and has since been rammed down our throats in the name of science, but nobody is going to prove the age of the earth or what animals lived there and what they "turned into." They cannot even agree amongst themselves how it all got started. So there is no 1 evolution theory either, just as there are many creation beliefs.
> *



Nope.  See www.talkorigins.org for a much better list of information than I could ever hope to present.




> *
> The arguement is also not political, as you would hope it to be. It's a sign of weakness when people have to band together behind a name when they can't feel confident enough with their own beliefs. I have mentioned no political affiliation.
> *



Oh, but the argument IS political.  You see, since creationists have no science to back their claims, their only option is to try to change education through the political process.  You only need to read the news to see that this is exactly what is happening right now.  Our science textbooks are being turned into useless piles of woodpulp so that the book companies can sell them in Texas.  Every state in the union has multiple lawsuits brought yearly because some self-righteous or stealth-funded creationists has his/her panties in a twist when their kid brings home a book about dinosaurs.  Half of the states currently have ICR or Discovery Institute hired teams of lobbyists trying to push legislation that would open the door to teaching creationism instead of evolution in science class.  Yes, this is definitely a political, not scientific argument.



> *
> Ignorance, pure ignorance. You may as well drop off the thread.
> 
> *



Heh.  Again, you really need to read up on what's REALLY happening with this issue.  There are volumes upon volumes of dialogue that read exactly as I wrote, without the satirical aspect, of course.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

I thinks some people here are misinterpreting the word "theory" in a scientific context.

In science, something must continue to be called a theory unless it is actually WITNESSED by a scientist and recorded.  Then, it becomes a law.  This is why we have a law of motion and a theory of relativity.

Evolution must remain a theory. It can never be more than a theory simply because our lifetime is not long enough to observe it in action.  Theory, when used to describe aspects of science, doesn't just mean "random idea that hasn't been tested"  

It is a scientific fact that matter cannot be created and destroyed... only changed.

We have records of creatures that existed long ago.  Those creatures are obviously no longer here.  We can get an idea of the age of the creatures based on their locations in the fossil record.  It is a logical conclusion that today's creatures came from the creatures of long ago, simply because it is completely illogical to believe that the creatures of long ago somehow went *POOF* and new creatures showed up.  The world just plain doesn't work like that.

Personally, I believe science has absolutely nothing to do with faith.  Faith has nothing to do with science.  Science is about proof.  Faith is about belief.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Gravity, on the quantum level, is not reliable.  Sub-atomic particles are completely unaffected at times.  Faith in the "law of gravity" masked this little secret.  Also, it is theorized that the particle that carries the force of gravity is called the graviton.  This has never been tested or observed directly or indirectly.  Scientists accept this theory on the "belief" that one day it will be found.*



Not exactly.  The graviton model of particle transportation of gravitational forces isn't a theory as much as it is a hypothesis.  It is a model that serves to adequately explain what we see in the behavior of gravity so far, but hasn't been elevated to a theory because of lack of verification.  From everything I've read about it so far, it certainly isn't generally accepted among scientists as anything beyond that, pending verification or falsification.  But the model WORKS mathematically.  Hence, it has some utility.  There's definitely plenty of debate about this right now.



> *
> Mike
> 
> Evolution is a theory, I agree.  The difference between a scientific theory and a scientific law is quite substantial.  There are not multiple theories of evolution, though - unless you count Rupert Sheldrake's!  There are multiple theories on the mechanisms that cause evolution.  Punctuated equiplibria and natural selection are the two most popular theories.  As far as your comments about animals turning into other animals, that is not what evolution describes.  Species go extinct and new species arise from the results of environmental pressure.  Nothing is turning into anything.
> ...



No, evolution isn't a theory, and Punctuated Equilibrium and Natural Selection do not compete for their place in the mechanisms for evolution.  PE is a refinement of natural selection, nothing more.  There's certainly some disagreement about how much effect PE has over more gradual development, but that's to be expected.

Your second part is spot on.  I always get a kick out of creationists screaming about bacteria growing legs and talking.  It just shows that they don't really even understand what they're arguing against.

For the record, evolution is simply this:  Change in allele (genes, more or less) frequency in populations over time.  
A cat doesn't change into a dog, but it's entirely possible that, over many generations in a particular population of cats, you might eventually encounter environmental pressures that would lead to individual cats with doglike features to have an reproductive advantage over their brethren.  What you end up with is cats with doglike features, NOT DOGS.  Eventually, with enough changes, it becomes impossible for the new cats to interbreed with the old ones, resulting in a new species.  

The creationist understanding of evolution is so wrong and childish, it defies explanation in a supposedly educated socity.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2003)

> Evolution must remain a theory. It can never be more than a theory simply because our lifetime is not long enough to observe it in action.



Well, this is only half-true. Microevolution has been readily observed firsthand by scientists. Macroevolution, however, has not.

Macroevolution, however, is the form of evolution most creationists are so upset about.



> Theory, when used to describe aspects of science, doesn't just mean "random idea that hasn't been tested"



Yes, exactly. :asian: 



> We have records of creatures that existed long ago. Those creatures are obviously no longer here. We can get an idea of the age of the creatures based on their locations in the fossil record. It is a logical conclusion that today's creatures came from the creatures of long ago, simply because it is completely illogical to believe that the creatures of long ago somehow went *POOF* and new creatures showed up. The world just plain doesn't work like that.



Yup.

During my high school biology classes, they actually showed concrete, specific examples of this. There were slides showing different fossil remains of what is believed to be ancestors of the modern horse. The farther back they went, there was a definite trend in how the leg and hoof composition of the horse creatures was changing. It was a long, gradual change.

Obviously, those "horse ancestors" are no longer around. But the modern horse is.

Likewise, it wasn't just an accident that around the time that homo sapien popped up that homo erectus was beginning to dwindle rapidly.

Laterz.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

Gravity isn't a law... its simply an observable force.

if you think about what happens when you stretch out a bedsheet and drop a basketball in the middle, and then drop a bunch of marbles and see where they roll to, you get an idea of how gravity works on a 2 dimensional level. Gravity is actually 3 dimensional, and the sheet represents a volume of space, not an area, but you can get the idea.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Not exactly.  The graviton model of particle transportation of gravitational forces isn't a theory as much as it is a hypothesis.  It is a model that serves to adequately explain what we see in the behavior of gravity so far, but hasn't been elevated to a theory because of lack of verification.  From everything I've read about it so far, it certainly isn't generally accepted among scientists as anything beyond that, pending verification or falsification.  But the model WORKS mathematically.  Hence, it has some utility.  There's definitely plenty of debate about this right now.*



The graviton is part of a particle physics theory that will eventually spit out Quantum Gravity, according to scientists.  There is a bit of faith mixed in this statement.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *No, evolution isn't a theory, and Punctuated Equilibrium and Natural Selection do not compete for their place in the mechanisms for evolution.  PE is a refinement of natural selection, nothing more.  There's certainly some disagreement about how much effect PE has over more gradual development, but that's to be expected.*



Evolution is most certainly a theory!  Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibria have very distinct differences and are theories unto themselves.  The biggest you notified as gradualism.  The other differences are genetic.  Natural selection relies on natural mutations.  While Punctuated Equilibria relies on "switch" genes and junk DNA.  For instance, if one of these "switch" genes is manipulated, entire sections of DNA can be activated or inactivated.  In essence, DNA you carry that is inactive, such as the code for gills, could be activated under extreme environmental stress.  This leads to quick punctuated changes in species.  Those are large differences.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *Gravity isn't a law... its simply an observable force.
> 
> if you think about what happens when you stretch out a bedsheet and drop a basketball in the middle, and then drop a bunch of marbles and see where they roll to, you get an idea of how gravity works on a 2 dimensional level. Gravity is actually 3 dimensional, and the sheet represents a volume of space, not an area, but you can get the idea. *



The Law of Universal Gravitation states that gravity is a force exerted between two masses over a distance.  

F = G (m1*m2)/r^2

The law is not in question.  It is how gravity works.  You described an Einstienian view of gravity above.  This view predicts something called gravitational waves, which have never been observed.  On the quantum level Einstienian gravity completely breaks down.  Your description was actually 3 dimensional.  If you had actually performed the demonstration, it would be 4th dimensional.  Hey, did you watch the Nova special?


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

Why is it that only the "scientists" are touting evolution as a fact? Becuase they have to look like they're doing _soooomething_. After all, our school textbooks are supposed to be teaching facts, right?

Actually, every class I ever had on it referred to it as the "Theory of Evolution"

And this isn't the only thing scientists cannot agree on. If we go back further to the "Big Bang", you run into even more bizarro content. But oh no, this is the truth children, and if you want to pass this class, you had better believe it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

Anyone want to discuss the bizzarro Big Bang Stuff?  This is, afterall, part of the concept of evolution.  Cosmological Evolution, that is.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

nope...

I had a physics PhD try to explain it to me (a film major!)


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

> Why is it that only the "scientists" are touting evolution as a fact? Becuase they have to look like they're doing soooomething. After all, our school textbooks are supposed to be teaching facts, right?


Schoolbooks don't teach anything. Teachers ... People ... teach. Hopefully, our teachers are using all of the aids available to them to help our children think; to apply their ability to reason to a set of circumstances in front of them. Hopefully, one of the items our children will learn (and maybe some of their parents) is what is called the 'Scientific Method'.

Defined:
*scientific method* : principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.

The wonderful thing about using the scientific method on everyday observations is that this method is self-correcting. It is also subject to peer-review.

For instance, maybe we can't agree that gravity exists. Is there anyway we can observer gravity in action? Sure ... let's drop something from a height. Now, on the day that a dropped object (that is not subject to other external forces) doesn't fall to the ground, we can all go back to the woodshed to re-think gravity.

Of course, heavier items fall faster then lighter items. So, lets take to spherical items of Identical size and texture, and drop them, at the same time from the same height. We can carefully measure that the heavier item reaches the ground quicker than the lighter item .... but wait ... they hit the ground at the same time... now, why could that be? Don't know... But I can publish my findings, and a fellow scientist can perform the same experiment on the other side of the world, and get *exactly* the same results. So, someone smarter than me can figure out that gravity is 'pulling' harder on the heavier item, than it is pulling on the lighter item - this would explain why they items fall at the same rate of speed - because that is what we observed.

Now, let's apply the scientific method to religion. Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again after two nights in the tomb. Let's see if we can construct a test to reproduce this ... who wants to volunteer to be crucified? anyone? I'm sure the two nights will pass real quickly ... and we can put aside all this science stuff...   OK ..this last paragraph is a bit over the top. But, it is not possible to apply the self-correcting, peer-reviewed scientific method to religion. Religion by its very nature (and its very strength) is that it must be taken on Faith.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

A good textbook will present macroevolution as the best explanation we have at the moment that fits all the current evidence.  A good teacher will do the same.

When I was taught evolution in high school this is how it was presented to me.  My mother is a science teacher. That is how she presents it to her students.

If you are concerned about the way your child is being taught, go sit in on the class.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Of course, heavier items fall faster then lighter items. So, lets take to spherical items of Identical size and texture, and drop them, at the same time from the same height. We can carefully measure that the heavier item reaches the ground quicker than the lighter item .... but wait ... they hit the ground at the same time... now, why could that be? Don't know... But I can publish my findings, and a fellow scientist can perform the same experiment on the other side of the world, and get exactly the same results. So, someone smarter than me can figure out that gravity is 'pulling' harder on the heavier item, than it is pulling on the lighter item - this would explain why they items fall at the same rate of speed - because that is what we observed.*



I agree with most of what you said, except the bit about gravity.  Gravity accelerates all objects equally, regardless of their mass.  This can be tested anywhere on the planet or in space.

As far as the beginning, the real beginning, the Big Bang goes...imagine an infinitely small, infinitely dense point from which all of the matter in the universe sprung.  At the same time, this point in infinite in magnitude in the same way that .9 repeating is infinite yet it is has boundaries - extending the mathmatical analogy... .9 repeating = 1 and since 1 is an integer defined and real.  The universe is expanding and infinite, yet it is bound with an edge.  

Now THAT is bizzarro...


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

Then why, when I skydive, my normal fall rate is 120 miles an hour, but when I wear a 25lb weight belt, my fall rate is 140 mph?

this is consistent.  I have an altimeter that tracks fall speed, and my fall rate without weights is ALWAYS around 120 mph (I can slow down a bit or speed up a bit depending on my body position, but its always right around there), and my fall rate with weights is ALWAYS around 140 mph with similar variations in body position.  Since the weights are flat and worn around the waist, it doesn't really change the shape of the falling object (in my case, me).

can anyone figure this out?  Most skydivers aren't rocket scientists, so we know that wearing weight makes lighter jumpers fall faster, but we can't figure out why.


----------



## Jmh7331 (Dec 12, 2003)

Nightingale, here's a good site for explaining that:


http://www.glenbrook.k12.il.us/gbssci/phys/Class/newtlaws/u2l3e.html


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

> Of course, heavier items fall faster then lighter items. So, lets take to spherical items of Identical size and texture, and drop them, at the same time from the same height. We can carefully measure that the heavier item reaches the ground quicker than the lighter item .... but wait ... they hit the ground at the same time... now, why could that be? Don't know... But I can publish my findings, and a fellow scientist can perform the same experiment on the other side of the world, and get exactly the same results. So, someone smarter than me can figure out that gravity is 'pulling' harder on the heavier item, than it is pulling on the lighter item - this would explain why they items fall at the same rate of speed - because that is what we observed.




Hello ... that is Sarcasm .... That ... right up there ... that is my own typing I have quoted....

Heavier objects *DO NOT* fall faster than lighter objects.  Don't you folks remember the experiment from the leaning tower of Pisa? On earth, when factoring for air resistance is considered, all objects accelerate at the same rate of speed. I believe this is called (cleverly) the 'Acceleration of Gravity'. As I recall, the accelleration of gravity is 9 meters per second squared (on earth). This means, if you fall from the top of, lets' say, the sears tower in Chicago - during the first second (1/60th of a minute) you would fall approximately 30 feet - during the second sixtyth of a minute, you would fall approximately 60 feet - during the third sixtyth of a minute, you would fall 90 feet. Which means, by the time 3 seconds have passed, you have fallen at 180 feet. - and you are still accelerating.  Go Go Gadget Go.

Mike


----------



## allen (Dec 12, 2003)

Hey Dr. Robertson.  

Your brothers ans sisters in Kenpo will always find you.  How does it not surprise me that you would be slamming peoples faith again?  Are these people aware of your extreme radical liberal leftist views.  Do they know that you are a socialist? and all of that stuff.  They will soon I'm sure.

C'mon man.  Give it a break.  GOD created the world we didn't evolve from a microorganism or a pretzel or anything else.  and God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.  O.k?  O.K.

If you want to believe differently that's fine, just don't influence the kids with your personal beliefs please.

Thanks,
Your right wing,
allen


P.S.  How do you like my avatar.  It's Tony Soprano laying in bed, depressed.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

Please keep the discussion polite and respectful.

Thank you.

Nightingale
MT MODERATOR


----------



## allen (Dec 12, 2003)

Sure.

Hi Kris.  How's everything and Grilli's?  Hey, Have you heard from Hebler?  Everyone is looking for him?


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Hello ... that is Sarcasm .... That ... right up there ... that is my own typing I have quoted....
> 
> Heavier objects DO NOT fall faster than lighter objects.  Don't you folks remember the experiment from the leaning tower of Pisa? On earth, when factoring for air resistance is considered, all objects accelerate at the same rate of speed. I believe this is called (cleverly) the 'Acceleration of Gravity'. As I recall, the accelleration of gravity is 9 meters per second squared (on earth). This means, if you fall from the top of, lets' say, the sears tower in Chicago - during the first second (1/60th of a minute) you would fall approximately 30 feet - during the second sixtyth of a minute, you would fall approximately 60 feet - during the third sixtyth of a minute, you would fall 90 feet. Which means, by the time 3 seconds have passed, you have fallen at 180 feet. - and you are still accelerating.  Go Go Gadget Go.
> ...



Mike,

No disrespect.
A or Acceleration is 9.8 Meters per second squared   or
32 ft per second squared.

:asian:


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

Hey, Allen.

I don't know Mr. Hebler, but you could try contacting Mr. Darrin Phillips (7of9's dad on kenponet).  I know they know each other.  

I haven't been into the kenpo studio in a bit... had a nasty bout of food poisoning followed three days later by this awful flu that's been going around, and I'm still feeling more than a little under the weather.  My instructor has been sending me emails telling me to get my tail back in the studio, and I will as soon as I'm sure I'm not going to give this flu to everyone else in the class, because NOBODY should have to suffer through days of 102.8 fevers.


----------



## allen (Dec 12, 2003)

Kris,  I hear ya.  Take care of that flu.  Don't spread it around here either.   

I think Mr. Phillips is going to "Mr. Lee's" studio in Dalles Oregon this weekend for a littlle seminar or something.  We'll see how that goes.


Take Care.


----------



## allen (Dec 12, 2003)

I was just thinking.  You must feel like my avatar looks.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 12, 2003)

if your avatar looks like its been run over by a truck, yep, then that would be about how I feel.

I've dragged myself to work for the last four days, because I don't get sick pay, so I can't afford to be out, but since I should be at home resting, I'm not getting better!

sigh.

I need to go throw myself out of a plane.  LOL.


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *Schoolbooks don't teach anything. Teachers ... People ... teach. Hopefully, our teachers are using all of the aids available to them to help our children think; to apply their ability to reason to a set of circumstances in front of them. Hopefully, one of the items our children will learn (and maybe some of their parents) is what is called the 'Scientific Method'.
> 
> Now, let's apply the scientific method to religion. Jesus was crucified, buried, and rose again after two nights in the tomb. Let's see if we can construct a test to reproduce this ... who wants to volunteer to be crucified? anyone? I'm sure the two nights will pass real quickly ... and we can put aside all this science stuff...   OK ..this last paragraph is a bit over the top. But, it is not possible to apply the self-correcting, peer-reviewed scientific method to religion. Religion by its very nature (and its very strength) is that it must be taken on Faith. *



Right. Religion and science are two different things. But the science of studying our beginnings, as weak as it is, is conflicting with religion.

I suppose that people who have no faith also do not believe in Ki. It would have to follow suit. we've never bottled it, put it in a petri dish, or injected it into rats.

This is the main theme of this thread from what I can take away from it, other then arguing over the accelleration of gravity, which everyone should know, a bowling ball and a feather will fall and hit the ground at the same time in a vaccuum.

Anyways, I enjoyed this one as well. Talk to you all soon... 

:asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2003)

I'm still waiting to read why a) the science of studying our beginnings," is weak, since it's as well-established as the Copernican theory, and b) why evolution conflicts with "religion"--for which word, again, read, fundamentalist Protestantism.

The Catholic church accepts evolution. Most Christian churches in this country do, apparently. Buddhists have no probs. 

So what IS the prob? Only thing I can see is a literal reading of Scripture...in which case, you're stuck with that whole women-are-secondary-to-men claptrap, too.

Your brand of Christianity or your personal faith may conflict with evolution. That's your business, your prerogative, your absolute right. And who knows? maybe you're right. But it does not conflict with everybody's, and I have to say that it's a little presumptuous to claim that it does, or should.

My problem with the whole discussion is that I don't much care for seeing folks warp what science is and overlook the facts about reality, but wotthell. And I'll be damned if I see why viewing the complexity and beauty of the world and life as they really are takes a thing away from any Creator...personally, I would think that it would increase one's, "wow."

Oh, and Allen? Do me a personal and discuss the issues, please. I find it hard to keep my temper in a discussion where civility, common sense, and some ideas about good methods of argument make it impossible for me to respond in kind. They're just words. It's just an Internet argument. The future of Western Civ does not hinge on these discussions. And, I suspect, people on these forums can handle themselves in various ways.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 12, 2003)

> Religion and science are two different things ..... I suppose that people who have no faith also do not believe in Ki. It would have to follow .... This is the main theme of this thread from what I can take away from it



:wink2: Very good. That is one hell of a good piece of reasoning. . . . *Almost*

If one lives according to the precepts of the scientific method, the existence Ki (or Chi) has not yet been rigourously tested, repeatably and verifiably, and therefore its existence should not be denied or confirmed. 

Does Ki (or Chi) exist? Well, maybe yes, mabye no. A person living by the precepts of science would say that, so far, we do not have any evidence that such a thing exists.

Most of those who apply the scientific method would never be so bold as to say a thing doesn't exist. We remain open to the possibility of Ki (or Chi or God or Aliens), but we will remain skeptical until such evidence makes the existance of such more likely than unlikely.

Discussing Gravity is easy ... because we all understand how it works ... well sort of... But you can apply the techniques used to test gravity to many of the things we observe and infer in the universe ... but, it is not easy to apply these techniques to faith.

Mike


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 12, 2003)

Someone should start a thread about chi.  Does it exist or is it just a myth?  Good topic.


----------



## Andi (Dec 13, 2003)

I always like this debate. My views on the subject are that I'm not sure! But I can't see how it is so easy for the "creationists" to dismiss the science behind evolution. Why hasn't a creationist paper ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal? Well I don't know that for certain but having studied the subject I came across none.

So to explain this I can only assume that if the creationists are right, and being thorough and fair with their treatment of the subject scientifically, then the "Scientists" must be part of a conspiracy to keep creationism out. I've heard this conspiracy theory alluded to a few times, but never expressed outrightly. I don't see how a conspiracy theory would stand up. None of the top professor blokes I've ever met would be able to be so cunning and deceptive. And not one involved has ever broken ranks? Maybe I'm following a false path of reasoning here, so if you spot a flaw, point it out.

Maybe students of the history of science will be able to lend a hand here. Is there a precedent of scientists holding out so long against a true theory?

No religion bashing from me, I'm a christian.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Andi _
> *Why hasn't a creationist paper ever been published in a peer-reviewed journal?  *



This website is full of such papers and they are written by skilled scientists in various fields.  They are all on the subject of "creation science."  I will reserve my opinion as to not influence yours.

http://www.icr.org/


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 13, 2003)

> Mike,
> 
> No disrespect.
> A or Acceleration is 9.8 Meters per second squared or
> 32 ft per second squared.



See ... Peer-Review in action :wink1: Thanks, Rich, I'm getting old, and the memory *is* the first thing to go :wink2:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Dec 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by michaeledward _
> *See ... Peer-Review in action :wink1: Thanks, Rich, I'm getting old, and the memory is the first thing to go :wink2: *



I thought it (Memory)  was the second to go. And, I just wish I could remember what the first thing to go was?
:rofl:


----------



## arnisador (Dec 13, 2003)

I have no problem with creationism, understood as a religious belief.

I _do_ have a problem with "creation science" as a science, since it is pseudo-scientific--I dare say, anti-scientific--nonsense.

There's only one scientific theory of speciation that's got any currency--evolution. It still has some things that need to be worked out, but so does the theory of gravity.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 13, 2003)

This has been a great discussion.  I liked the comparisons between the law of gravity and the theory of evolution.  We examined the philosophical differences between the two and we were able to discern the nature of scientific thought from the discussion.  

I agree with arnisador about creation science.  It's psuedo-science, plain and simple.  Experimental evidence is hard to come by in creation science and true experiments on sedimentation and genetics provide negative evidence for the "theory."  There is no question which theory is more credible and there is no question which should be taught in a biology class.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2003)

The reason that "scientific creationist," or, "intelligent design," papers don't appear in peer-reviewed, professional journals is the same reason that your average story about Roswell doesn't appear in "Aviation Week and Space Technology," and papers about therapeutic touch don't appear in, "JAMA."

It may be decent theology, but it sure is lousy science. 

As for the ICR website, well, these are the guys who have the painting of onee of Noah's kids feeding the stegosaur hanging in their foyer.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *Evolution is most certainly a theory!  Natural Selection and Punctuated Equilibria have very distinct differences and are theories unto themselves.  The biggest you notified as gradualism.  The other differences are genetic.  Natural selection relies on natural mutations.  While Punctuated Equilibria relies on "switch" genes and junk DNA.  For instance, if one of these "switch" genes is manipulated, entire sections of DNA can be activated or inactivated.  In essence, DNA you carry that is inactive, such as the code for gills, could be activated under extreme environmental stress.  This leads to quick punctuated changes in species.  Those are large differences. *



Ah, not quite.  PE refers only to the rapid evolution of daughter species in an isolated population subjected to selection pressures.  Could you provide a reference that characterizes PE as what you've described?  I've never heard this before.  

Here's a good article on the subject, though by no means is it definitive:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Ah, not quite.  PE refers only to the rapid evolution of daughter species in an isolated population subjected to selection pressures.  Could you provide a reference that characterizes PE as what you've described?  I've never heard this before.
> 
> Here's a good article on the subject, though by no means is it definitive:  http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#errors *



What I said above is exactly the theory that Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed.  Those population changes are the external environmental pressures.  My description of the DNA is the internal mechanism for the morphologic change.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *What I said above is exactly the theory that Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldridge proposed.  Those population changes are the external environmental pressures.  My description of the DNA is the internal mechanism for the morphologic change. *



But I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that Gould and Edredge pushed the idea of the "switching on" of junk DNA as the mechanism for PE.  As far as I can tell, they only speak about isolated populations and selection pressures doing the job, and then the new species breaks out of its isolation and quickly (in geological terms) replaces the old one.  In "geological" terms, rapid still means hundreds, or even thousands of generations.  You're not talking about the sudden expression of gills on otherwise land-bound creatures because something got switched on.

I'm not saying it couldn't happen, though.  It's conceivable that there could exist, in a gill-less (to use the example above) species's junk DNA, a set of genes that originally coded for gills that was somehow left intact over the generations.  And it could be conceivable that some kind of genetic mutation/copy error/duplication event etc. could cause those proteins to express again.  I'm just saying that this possibility isn't suggested as the mechanism for PE.  As an example of genetic modifcation in a population, it would fall under the many mechanisms of neo-darwinism in general.  

Back to creationism:  One thing that always amused me about "Creation Scientists" was their inability to actually provide scientific support for their own position.  Look at their websites and the "papers".  It's all attacks on evolution and science in general.  In many cases, they attack the very process they would need in order to support their own theories.  If they actually had any theories, they'd run into a problem.


----------



## Ender (Dec 15, 2003)

What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error. *



Time only gets goofy when you move near the speed of light and that is only in different frames of reference.  For your frame of reference, it's always constant.


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *But I haven't been able to find anything that suggests that Gould and Edredge pushed the idea of the "switching on" of junk DNA as the mechanism for PE.  As far as I can tell, they only speak about isolated populations and selection pressures doing the job, and then the new species breaks out of its isolation and quickly (in geological terms) replaces the old one.  In "geological" terms, rapid still means hundreds, or even thousands of generations.  You're not talking about the sudden expression of gills on otherwise land-bound creatures because something got switched on.
> 
> I'm not saying it couldn't happen, though.  It's conceivable that there could exist, in a gill-less (to use the example above) species's junk DNA, a set of genes that originally coded for gills that was somehow left intact over the generations.  And it could be conceivable that some kind of genetic mutation/copy error/duplication event etc. could cause those proteins to express again.  I'm just saying that this possibility isn't suggested as the mechanism for PE.  As an example of genetic modifcation in a population, it would fall under the many mechanisms of neo-darwinism in general.  *



This is such a great aside.  The actual paper doesnt' suggest the mechanism.  The subsequent books by Gould do.  Stephen Jay Gould is one of my favorite scientific authors - on the same level as Carl Sagan.  I would recommend any of their books.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error. *



Might I suggest you get a hold of the first 25 page of a book called "The Elegant Universe". It will help you understand more clearly what 'Relativity' is all about.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 15, 2003)

> The Catholic church accepts evolution. Most Christian churches in this country do, apparently. Buddhists have no probs.
> 
> So what IS the prob? Only thing I can see is a literal reading of Scripture...in which case, you're stuck with that whole women-are-secondary-to-men claptrap, too.



I so agree. Literal reading of scripture...and also taking the scripture out of context and out of the realm of "why" and "to whom" the scripture was written is what causes such conflicts.

I have no probs. with Evolution as a theory.

PAUL


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Back to creationism:  One thing that always amused me about "Creation Scientists" was their inability to actually provide scientific support for their own position.  Look at their websites and the "papers".  It's all attacks on evolution and science in general.  In many cases, they attack the very process they would need in order to support their own theories.  If they actually had any theories, they'd run into a problem. *



Well put. Creation science--even Intelligent Design--is principally an attack on another theory, nota theory itself.


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *What everybody seems to missing here is that Time is not constant. It is relative, Einstein proved that. So basing any evidence or conclusion or theory on a fixed time scale can have a large margin of error. *



I assume you're being facetitious in bringing Einstein and relativity into this?


----------



## Ender (Dec 15, 2003)

No I am not being facetitous. I read that book by Stephen Hawking (can't remember the name of it), and even he states that time is warped and bent depending on a variety of factors. His basic premise is that Time is motion, speed and relativity and can act differently depending on singularities, black holes and gravitational wells. If you look at the Big Bang Theory and measured time from when it took place, you could not get an accurate calculation because time at the center of the big bang is relative to where you would when you tried to calculate. Time at the instant of the big bang would be much different then when you are further away from it. 

As a side note, the speed of the earth rotation would decrease after a while making the length of a day different than it is now. The length of a day in the beginining may have been a hour compared to 24 hours that it is now. I was just reading the other day how the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth is decaying (half life) much more rapidly than calculated and measured in the 60's. Projecting this decay backwards does not calculate to millions of years.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 15, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> * I was just reading the other day how the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth is decaying (half life) much more rapidly than calculated and measured in the 60's. Projecting this decay backwards does not calculate to millions of years. *



The earth's magnetic pole has been known to flip from South to North and North to South. If you study the reports about the weakening magnetic poles, you'll see they anticipate that the 'Magnetic Pole' is in the beginning stages of one of these 'flips'.  So, in approximately 3000 years, we will lose the magnetic North pole ..... and a thousand years or so after that, we will have a magnetic South pole.  I'm not too worried about it.

Also, the length of the earths day is indeed slowing down. This is caused by the gravitational effects of the moon on the liquid surface of our planet. As the Moon's gravity is applied to the oceans, it creates TIDES ... the cumulative effect of these tides cause the rotation of the earth to slow. A careful review will reveal that once or twice every 12 or 15 years, we will add 1 second to the earth's calendar year to compensate for this effect.

Man, isn't science cool.


Mike


----------



## arnisador (Dec 15, 2003)

Is that you, Alan Sokal?

What you're saying has nothing to do with evolution. Even if time was mis-measured, evolution would still be occurring.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 16, 2003)

I think the Hawking book you were referring to is  "A brief history of time"


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *This is such a great aside.  The actual paper doesnt' suggest the mechanism.  The subsequent books by Gould do.  Stephen Jay Gould is one of my favorite scientific authors - on the same level as Carl Sagan.  I would recommend any of their books. *



Ack!  You mean I have to research!?  The horror!

Sagan's "Demon Haunted World" is an all-time favorite of mine.  It's a classic in every sense of the word.  I can't say I've read Gould.  I'm going on summaries and discussions from other learned folks.

I have to say that it seems odd to have Gould suggest this mechanism as a primary source of change.  It sounds kinda "hopeful monster"-ish.  I probably just don't have the right sense of it.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 16, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Ender _
> *As a side note, the speed of the earth rotation would decrease after a while making the length of a day different than it is now. The length of a day in the beginining may have been a hour compared to 24 hours that it is now. I was just reading the other day how the magnetic field that surrounds the Earth is decaying (half life) much more rapidly than calculated and measured in the 60's. Projecting this decay backwards does not calculate to millions of years. *



That's actually two side notes.   

The length of the earth's day has been decreasing for the past few billion years.  This is due to tidal interactions with both the sen and the moon (mostly the moon).  The moon itself has already been slowed so that it's rate of rotation is now equal to it's rate of revolution about the earth.  That's why the same face of the moon is always presented.  It's absolutely true that the day was shorter back when the earth was young.  Extrapolating the rate backwards does not arrive at an age of less than several billions of years.

The magnetic field is currently under a state of decay, true.  As someone else already mentioned, however, you can't extrapolate back indefinitely.  The strengths and directions of the magnetic field can be determined by examining lavas extruded by volcanoes and especially mid-oceanic ridges (where the crust is spreading and magma wells up to form new crush).  When the lava solidifies, iron molecules in the lava will align with the current magnetic field.  The decay and pole-switching of the field is recorded in the substance of the earth itself.

Both of the above arguments presented by Ender are good examples of creationist pseudo-science.  They both rest fallacious arguments and erroneous assumptions.  They've both been refuted repeatedly, directly to the people who make the arguments.  Those people have even acknowledged their mistakes, and yet they continue to present the same arguments.  The folks that run the ICR and the Discovery Institute are dishonest charlatans at best.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 16, 2003)

Yeah, the creationist arguments always rest on some form of catastrophism or another...like that guff about the Grand Canyon's having been dug out during the Great Flood...

The problem is--and it is testimony (you should pardon the expression) to how little the Institute of Creation Science folks understand science--is that science rests on an assumption of mediocrity. Which is, here, the idea that the physical laws don't abruptly and mysteriously change from place to place and time to time. 

That stuff about the Earth's magnetic field and rotational speed...whew.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 16, 2003)

If you want to hear something interesting, ask 3 creationists to give a scientific definition of "kind".  Also, ask where "microevolution" ends and "macroevolution" begins.

Ask why a lawyer is one of their favorite spokesmen (Phillip Johnson), or why few to none of their so-called "scientists" are actually credentialed in the fields they critique (Kent Hovind, William Craig, etc.)

Ask why irreducible complexity, one of the cornerstones of intelligent design/creationism that was trivially refuted from day one, is still being touted as one of the "killer evidences" against evolution.  

I'd suggest asking why their stuff is never published in peer-reviewed journals, but we all know the answer to that:  It's obviously a conspiracy led by an elite group of 15 to 20 million evil atheist scientists around the world to force evil-ution on an unsuspecting public!

It's simple, really:  scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed journals so that their findings can be critiqued, reproduced, and modified, verified, or tossed-out.  Creationist demagogues, on the other hand, publish their stuff as books to be sold in bookstores, thereby skipping the whole reproduction/verification process.  They also use the political process to their own ends, and even try to get their own, non-peer-reviewd textbooks into school systems.  Again, skipping the scientific process altogether.  If they had their way, children would be making models of Noah's ark in geology class, and writing papers discussing the domestication of dinosaurs by Noah's ancestors!  If you think I'm kidding, lookup another ICR favorite lecturer, "Dr." Kent Hovind, known popularly as Dr. Dino.

The whole thing is sickening and would be sad if they weren't so effective at removing science from science textbooks.


----------



## Marginal (Dec 16, 2003)

Best summation of the debate I've ever heard was on the Ali G show...

CS: "Now I don't know aobut you, but I'm not descended from a monkey!"
AG: "Ever eat a banana?"
CS: (Speechless)


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 17, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Marginal _
> *Best summation of the debate I've ever heard was on the Ali G show...
> 
> CS: "Now I don't know aobut you, but I'm not descended from a monkey!"
> ...



Now, that show is awesome!


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Dec 17, 2003)

Mr. Mike wrote:



> Nobody is really going to be able to prove how old this piece of rock is. "Pretty well" and "pretty close" just don't cut it.



It doesn't?  What does then?  Do you accept the creationist estimate of six thousand plus years?



Steve


----------



## MisterMike (Dec 17, 2003)

I really don't know enough about that estimate to accept it. But when I do you'll be the first to know. Thanks for askin'


----------



## Makalakumu (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by MisterMike _
> *I really don't know enough about that estimate to accept it. But when I do you'll be the first to know. Thanks for askin' *



The estimate traces bloodlines in the Bible and counts back generations to Adam and Eve.  It was done hundreds of years ago, by a bishop, I can't remember his name off hand.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by upnorthkyosa _
> *The estimate traces bloodlines in the Bible and counts back generations to Adam and Eve.  It was done hundreds of years ago, by a bishop, I can't remember his name off hand. *



Careful....I doubt he was a Catholic Bishop, which is what people think when they hear "Bishop". The Catholic Church accepts the theory of revolution.


----------



## michaeledward (Dec 18, 2003)

I found this link. I don't have the real player so I couldn't watch the video. But the reading on the page is somewhat interesting. Of course, it does present a "point of view".

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/dp-age-bible.htm

I'm sure similar searches can provide a wealth of information.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by PAUL _
> *Careful....I doubt he was a Catholic Bishop, which is what people think when they hear "Bishop". The Catholic Church accepts the theory of revolution. *



He was the primate of Ireland during the 17th century.  Here's an article about this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm

The Catholic Church didn't get around to accepting evolution and related sciences until the second half of the 20th century.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *He was the primate of Ireland during the 17th century.  Here's an article about this: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/ussher.htm
> 
> The Catholic Church didn't get around to accepting evolution and related sciences until the second half of the 20th century. *



Ah...

If a Catholic Bishop had a theory about the date of the earth based on the Bible prior to the 20th century, then I understand!

PAUL


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 18, 2003)

What I find very interesting is that the Catholic church now says that the bishop was wrong!  The church the bishop belonged to rejects his hypothesis, but other churches continue to accept it.  That's a little ironic, yes?


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Nightingale _
> *What I find very interesting is that the Catholic church now says that the bishop was wrong!  The church the bishop belonged to rejects his hypothesis, but other churches continue to accept it.  That's a little ironic, yes? *



Very Ironic.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 18, 2003)

Archbishop Ussher--nineteenth century--is mot typically associated with the calculation of the age of the earth by adding up the years of the prophets and patriarchs in Genesis.

I just love crackpottery like that, especially when people start getting the Great Pyramid into it so that they can calculate the date of the end of the world. (Today, around...oh...sixteen minutes from now...) And I just love the "catastrophist" bizarre takes on science, to say nothing of their idea that God only made things LOOK old to test us...


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by rmcrobertson _
> *Archbishop Ussher--nineteenth century--is mot typically associated with the calculation of the age of the earth by adding up the years of the prophets and patriarchs in Genesis.
> 
> I just love crackpottery like that, especially when people start getting the Great Pyramid into it so that they can calculate the date of the end of the world. (Today, around...oh...sixteen minutes from now...) And I just love the "catastrophist" bizarre takes on science, to say nothing of their idea that God only made things LOOK old to test us... *



Well, you should really read the article I linked.  I wouldn't call him a crackpot.  More a product of his time.  I don't think it's really fair to paint him with a modern brush, despite what it looks like to us today.

He published his estimate back in the early 1600s, btw.

This paragraph:
James Ussher (1581-1656), an Irish theologian and scholar, at one time had possibly the largest collection of books in Western Europe. A tireless collector, he eventually donated the collection to Trinity College, Dublin, which his uncle James Ussher helped found. During his lifetime he was widely known as a defender of learning, of the value of books secular and sacred, and a proponent of maintaining an independent identity for Irish Protestant faith. He was appointed Archbishop of Armagh in 1625. 

from
http://ifaq.wap.org/science/ussher.html

suggests that he was Anglican, rather than Romanc Catholic.

[edit] I just wanted to add that "crackpot" would be an excellent description for modern day folks who give credence to Ussher's estimate.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 18, 2003)

Thanks for the date correction: dopey me.

However, even in those times crackpottery is not altogther incorrect. By then, the Greeks and Romans had been arguing evolution for quite some time...as had others. 

However, you are again right in at least one way: "crackpot," imples someone with a whacko theory completely out of touch with common sense, as "common sense," is construed at the time.


----------



## Nightingale (Dec 18, 2003)

he was Church of Ireland... but even Anglican accepts evolution.


----------



## Cruentus (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *Well, you should really read the article I linked.  I wouldn't call him a crackpot.  More a product of his time.  I don't think it's really fair to paint him with a modern brush, despite what it looks like to us today. *


*

I agree, and I was just about to say basically the same thing. Also, even though greeks and Romans may have had some theories on evolution, they were no more backed by modern scientific evidence then Ussher's theory, at least not as I see it.




			[edit] I just wanted to add that "crackpot" would be an excellent description for modern day folks who give credence to Ussher's estimate.
		
Click to expand...

*
I could agree with you there!

My problem with the creationist stuff is it is more backed by legend (Genesis) rather then hard science. If hard science could estimate that earth was only thousands of years old, without using the bible to justify the claim, then I might consider the theories credible. I haven't seen a creationist theory backed by hard science; I only see creationist theories as being antagonistic towards evolutionists. The thing is, ANY theory can be effectively "shot down," even theories backed by hard science; its finding that alternative solution (with hard evidence to back it) that counts, not just shooting down the theory. Being a skeptic is easy, being a problem solver is not.

btw... according to my Catholic/Christian religious beliefs, Genesis is a legendary, mythical story, that was told in tribes around a campfire for 1000's of years before actually written down. It's "true" in a mythical sense, but not "literal." We could compare this to Homers Epics in that they have found some archeological evidence to support that some of the things in the epic were true, but obviously the "mytholigy" part was not literally true, but a way to explain what was going on around them.

Anyways, when you don't take certain parts of the bible literally, and take them in the context in which they were written like we're supposed too, you are allowed to be much more logical when modern science finds things out (like the world is more then 7 thousand years old, and the solar system doesn't revolve around the earth).


----------



## arnisador (Dec 18, 2003)

> _Originally posted by qizmoduis _
> *I'd suggest asking why their stuff is never published in peer-reviewed journals, but we all know the answer to that:  It's obviously a conspiracy led by an elite group of 15 to 20 million evil atheist scientists around the world to force evil-ution on an unsuspecting public!*



Heh.



> *It's simple, really:  scientists publish their research in peer-reviewed journals so that their findings can be critiqued, reproduced, and modified, verified, or tossed-out.  *



But I would add this...every scientist would love to make his or her mark the way Galileo, Newton, Darwin, Godel, Einstein, and others did: By turning our view of the world on its head with a revolutionary new paradigm that changes how we see things. If I could support a radical new theory like creation science, I'd publish it right now--thereby replacing Darwin's Theory of Evolution with Arnisador's Theory of Creationism! Every scientist would like to overturn things, and that's what is the biggest hole in their theory, to me--the belief that scientists would suppress a radical theory rather than use it to enhance their own fame!



> *The whole thing is sickening and would be sad if they weren't so effective at removing science from science textbooks. *



Yup--science is science. Whether science is right or wrong, if one intends to learne science, that's what one should learn--not religion.


----------



## Kane (Jul 4, 2004)

Just found this thread,
I have an interesting link on a debate between this same topic. Actually has some interesting points. Found it on google, looks like a debate with animal experts on Evolution vs Creation. The link is below;

http://p083.ezboard.com/fsharks77551frm2.showMessage?topicID=195.topic


As for my stance on this issue, I am pretty much agnostic, but not all the way. Anyone that says there is no proof for the theory for creation is very wrong. But there is not enough proof to convert me 100% into a christian, jew, or muslim. Cosmic evolution doesn't have enough proof for me either.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 4, 2004)

No, we're really not. The reasons have already been discussed, but they boil down to this: "proof," in the sense we're discussing, must be based on some material reality--some observable fact that can be produced again and again by  very different people who run the experiment or  take the look at Nature. It isn't, in other words, a matter of faith or belief or opinion, but of theory tested against reality.

Evolutionary theory rests on a very extensive series of such facts, all  of which point to/fit into the same idea. Among others, those facts include the age of the earth, which is utterly incompatible with every creationist timeline I've ever heard of.

Creationism does not, and will not until somebody produces, say, the Garden of Eden, or Adam and Eve's bones, or something similar. More to the point, fundamentalist Protestant beliefs--and primarily, that's what we're really talking about, not, "religion," and not even, "Christian"-- simply do not rest upon material facts. Their sources of legitimation are very different, and they  are simply not testable.

This does not  mean there's no God, or that the Christians Are Wrong, or even that  Creationism is wrong.  It means that these are not scientific questions, and that they cannot have scientific proof.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 5, 2004)

If anyone has read Gods of the New Millenium by Alan Alford, they'll know where I stand on this.

In this book, Alford puts forth a scientific theory which is a revolutionary twist on creationism.  The theory encompasses the mythology of the Sumerian people, describes the origins of the pyramids, stonehenge, Machu Pichu, reconciles the timeline of the Sumerian Kings List with the historical timeline of the Old Testament, and reconciles similarities between the mythologies and beliefs of various ancient civilizations around the globe, as well as a multitude of other previously irreconcilable differences between various theories and beliefs about our history.  Fascinating, a good read, and an interesting point of view.

In the book, Alford puts forth the idea that we were genetically engineered by an alien race to be their working class on Earth.  Sounds far out, but the book is a good argument, and very well researched.


----------



## RandomPhantom700 (Jul 5, 2004)

> In the book, Alford puts forth the idea that we were genetically engineered by an alien race to be their working class on Earth. Sounds far out, but the book is a good argument, and very well researched.


Far out?  I'd say it sounds just plain looney.  Tell me, what's his basic justification for claiming that all these ancient sites are somehow connected to an alien super-race?  It sounds like he's just trying to create some secular God, if that paradoxical phrase can be pardoned for a moment.


----------



## michaeledward (Jul 5, 2004)

flatlander said:
			
		

> In the book, Alford puts forth the idea that we were *genetically engineered by an alien race* to be their working class on Earth. Sounds far out, but the book is a good argument, and *very well researched*.


I am curious how one goes about conducting 'research' on an 'alien race'. Oh, well.

Thanks for contributing. Mike


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 5, 2004)

As I said, it sounds pretty far out.  If you're at all interested in questioning the theory, you should read it.  Its altogether way to detailed to get into here without just quoting the book endlessly, which would only serve to derail the thread.  Creative idea, though.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 5, 2004)

An argument swiped from Charles Fort and "Chariots of the Gods," coupled with "science," derived from movies and "Star Trek: TNG," episodes, is hardly the same as what Charles Darwin did.


----------



## heretic888 (Jul 6, 2004)

Agreed.

Pure speculation, divorced of any evidential proofs (whether material or otherwise), is not the basis for sound science --- or else every other conspiracy nutjob on the planet would have a claim to fame.

Laterz.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> An argument swiped from Charles Fort and "Chariots of the Gods," coupled with "science," derived from movies and "Star Trek: TNG," episodes, is hardly the same as what Charles Darwin did.


I'm going to pull out of this thread now, as it seems to me the general intent seems to be attack before investigate.  I apologize for bringing a different perspective to a 2 sided debate.  I guess when competition between two major positions heats up, opposing factions become so entrenched in trying to refute each other, there's just not enough time to listen to different possibilities.  

Sorry for butting in.  Enjoy your banter.

Dan.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 6, 2004)

> This does not mean there's no God, or that the Christians Are Wrong, or even that Creationism is wrong. It means that these are not scientific questions, and that they cannot have scientific proof.


Thank you, Robert.

As a scientist and a religious person, it makes me slightly mental (just slightly?) when I am asked (usually on a plane by a neighbor who sees the science book I'm reading), "So you believe in Evolution?"  

You have a belief system - based on faith.  And you have science, which is a system that is supposed to be driven by logic and empirical evidence.  The two are not mutally exclusive.  People get caught up in the fact that Darwin's theory of evolution does not presuppose a God in the process - and therefore think it's a refutation of religion.  Which it is not.  

I don't _believe_ in evolution, I think it is a pretty good theory.  I _believe_ in my religious beliefs.  

I like Stephen Jay Gould's Rocks of Ages for a quick tour through the science/religion difference and co-existence, and the importance of both in human lives - although Gould was an agnostic.  

I apologize in advance if I'm posting something already stated - I skipped ahead a bit in the thread.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jul 6, 2004)

OK, Dan, so I checked the Offical Alan Alford Website. He's a nutbar.

Here is a sample:

In the closing years of the 20th century and the opening years of the 21st, I happened, by a fruitful combination of curiosity, open-mindedness, instinct, perseverance, and luck, to gain knowledge of a great secret  the so-called Secret of secrets  that was cherished by the sages of old as the key to the Mystery of Existence, and transmitted through time by means of myth, allegory, cryptic writing, art, architecture, symbol, and oral initiatory traditions, for the benefit of those few who still had eyes to see and ears to hear. 

Armed with this sacred knowledge, I have invested my time carefully  driving back the fog of confusion which swirls around the man-made mysteries of our planet, while simultaneously contemplating the Original Mystery by testing the Idea of the ancient sages against my own observations of life, death, and human existence. The former quest, for man-made truth, is one that I share openly in my books, where I offer each individual reader the Knowledge through which he, or she, can become Homo religiosus sapiens  the man who is wise in his religion. The latter quest, for Original Truth, remains personal and private, as it ought to be; but in my fourth book I drop some hints for those who would follow my path of enlightenment, which is best described as esoteric Platonism."

Elsewhere on this site, he discusses Atlantis, the Great Pyramids, The Chariots of the Gods (looks like I had 'im pegged), Planet X, and something called, "the aquatic ape," theory of human evolution. 

He's a nutter in the grand and charming English tradition of nutters, without which the world would be a poorer place. However, I recommend reading Nevil Shute's "No  Highway In The Sky," or seeing the movie (it's got Jimmy Stewart!) for an even more charming nutter, Mr. Honey.

However, there's a difference. Mr. Honey is a brilliant mathemetician, with some very wacko theories about the Great Pyramid. Mr. Alford is not a brilliant mathemetician, or a brilliant scientist of any kind. 

The real question, though, is the one asked since Spinoza: why do people believe weird things? 

One reason--I've no idea if this is true in Mr. Alford's  case, but it can be seen pretty clearly in the "theories," of  Scientology--is racism. Like the Saucerians, often enough these, 'theories," sooner or laater start circulating around the idea that SOME of the  human race is pure and good, and some is mongrelized and debased--any cases about  which skin color attaches to which?

Similarly, I suspect that many people reject evolution because evolution says that a) we are one species, b) that species originated in Africa--and welllll, you know what that means. (Interestingly, certain parts of  the Nation of islam also reject evolution for very similar reasons of  fantasized racial supremacy.)

Another reason, however, is that educators like myself have done a piss-poor (and in some cases, cowardly) job of representing what science is, to say nothing of evolutionary theory.

Science is not just a bag of opinions. No, not everybody is equally qualified to decide scientific matters. 

You are always entitled to your own opinion, no matter how bizarre, I'm glad to say. This does not mean it's true, and don't get freedom of speech confused with the correct evaluation of reality.

Science is democratic in a different and more-radical sense. Science says that anyone, anyone at all, is free to learn, to research, to observe and experiment, to throw their results into the ring.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jul 6, 2004)

> something called, "the aquatic ape,"


I believe that is the idea that, along the path of human evolution, at one point our chimp-like ancestors were partially aquatic - which may explain (so the idea goes, I think) our loss of body hair, which would create a lot of drag in the water.

I haven't read anything in particular about this, I just remember a professor of mine talking about it as an aside in class.


----------



## Flatlander (Jul 6, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> OK, Dan, so I checked the Offical Alan Alford Website. He's a nutbar.
> .


OK, fair enough, I decided to check the website, as the idea that there might be one hadn't occurred to me.  Turns out Alford has retracted his original theory, and replaced it with a different one, and of course, written some more books.

I guess everyone has their own way of paying the bills.

The truth is, nobody that I know has ever read his work, and therefore had never 'discussed' the validity of the proposition with anybody before.  However, I suppose that rather than become defensive, it would be wiser of me to thank you for giving me cause to pause and check.  This exercise illustrates to me the way a bias can affect one's ability to put on one's critical thinking hat.

Having said my piece, then, know that I'll continue reading the various debates in here, this one included, waiting for the opportunity to put the hat on and offer something intelligent.  I don't have an issue with being called to task on my position.  But as Alford has retracted his own theory, there's not alot left for me to say about that.  

(let's pretend this never happenned)

Dan.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jul 11, 2004)

As an English minor in college I took a seminar on Darwinism and Victorian Literature.  Fascinating seminar, but within the context of this particular discussion I know that I can't contribute anything other than my thanks for a lively and provocative debate.  Good reading.


----------

