As a long-time Texan myself... Eek!
http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/ (http://www.texastribune.org/stories/2010/feb/17/meet-flintstones/)
Well, I'm one who believes in the young earth theory... and I'm also from Texas [cool] So, my question is, who has proven conclusively that humans did not live with dinosaurs? We certainly have a lot of old stories about dragons, even fire breathing dragons & the knights of old... the article mentions evolution & millions of years - actually evolutionists usually say that change happened over millions to billions of years... since you seem to be horrified by the notion that many Texans believe that dinosaurs & humans existed together, here are some questions I have for you (not original from me...) Just curious because evolution is taught as gospel in most educational institutions & even your reaction to the article shows how many people mock the "young earth" or "creationist's" viewpoint. Most people who talk about evolution lump micro-evolution & macro-evolution into the same category. There is no question about there being micro-evolution - just look at the different types of dogs; or the changes in beaks of the finches that Darwin noticed in the Galapagos Islands - that does happen all the time. I will always remember raising the fruit flies in biology class in the 7th grade... so.... I'd also like the answers to the following questions ;D
And a big question I have always wondered about... how did 2 of the same entities evolve exactly the same at the same time in order to pro-create? In all my reading, I've never seen that answered...
Questions for Evolutionists
Written by: Walt Brown
The test of any theory is whether or not it provides answers to basic questions. Some well-meaning, but misguided, people think evolution is a reasonable theory to explain man's questions about the universe. Evolution is not a good theory—it is just a pagan religion masquerading as science. The following questions were distributed to the 750-plus people who attended my debate at Winona State University in Winona, Minnesota, on January 9, 1993. Questions added since the debate remarked with an asterisk (*).
1. Where did the space for the universe come from?
2. Where did matter come from?
3. Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?
5. Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kind since this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
12. Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
13. When, where, why, and how did:
* Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
* Single-celled animals evolve?
* Fish change to amphibians?
* Amphibians change to reptiles
* Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes, reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
* How did the intermediate forms live?
14. When, where, why, how, and from what did:
* Whales evolve?
* Sea horses evolve?
* Bats evolve?
* Eyes evolve?
* Ears evolve?
* Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
15. Which evolved first (how, and how long; did it work without the others)?
* The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body's resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)?
* The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
* The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
* DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
* The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
* The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
* The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
* The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
* The immune system or the need for it? 16.There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
16. How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
17. When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
18. *How did photosynthesis evolve?
19. *How did thought evolve?
20. *How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
21. *What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
22. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
23. *Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
24. *What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
25.
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
26.
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
27. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
28. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
29. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
30. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
31. Do people accept evolution because of the following factors?
* It is all they have been taught.
* They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.).
* They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average.
* They are too proud to admit they are wrong.
* Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
32. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we don't have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
33. Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
34. What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
35. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Sassy, although it's obvious to anyone here who cares to look that I enjoy the heck out of arguing with deniers, conspiracy theorists, cranks, or whatever you want to call them, I think you've vastly overestimated the amount of energy I'm willing to dedicate in one fell swoop. The list of questions you've cut and pasted, most of which aren't really even germane to evolution, appear to me to be more an effort to overwhelm with volume rather than an honest attempt at debate.
Creationism/Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that declares without proof or method that science is inadequate to explain existence and that supernatural causes must be considered. For a debate to be useful, there have to be two reasonable points of view being argued that have evidence to support them. The evidence doesn't have to be of identical quality on each side, of course, but it should at least be somewhere in the same ball park. This is where we have a problem. There are simply no real proofs or evidence to support creationism.
You knew I wasn't going to dedicate the time and effort that would be required to address all that, didn't you? Drop two or three of those questions on me sometime, though, and I'll likely bite. Better still, you could provide a credible alternative theory to evolution, supported by reasonable evidence.
In the meantime, if you really want response to some of those questions, I'll answer your cut and paste with a link, and you can trudge through it all at your leisure:
An Index to Creationist Claims
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/index.html)
It's bedtime for Bonzo (me) here, so until tomorrow, you take care and sleep well, Sassy.
Night night.
Creationism/Intelligent Design is a pseudoscience that declares without proof or method that science is inadequate to explain existence and that supernatural causes must be considered. For a debate to be useful, there have to be two reasonable points of view being argued that have evidence to support them. The evidence doesn't have to be of identical quality on each side, of course, but it should at least be somewhere in the same ball park. This is where we have a problem. There are simply no real proofs or evidence to support creationism.
And no, Raindog, I didn't expect or think that you'd answer any of those questions because evolutionists don't & can't answer them either - theirs is a faith in billions & billions of years of unprovable hypotheses & speculation, of countless debunked examples ie some that I posted - "Lucy, piltdown man, vestigial organs, etc" - I just thought that maybe, just maybe, you or someone else reading the questions would say "hey, how could that have happened?"
I did ask one specific question "how did 2 of the same entities evolve at the same time to be able to pro-create?" And while were at it "Where did time, space & matter come from?" That's another good question that I've never seen answered by evolutionists - all I see is what you did, discount the creationist/intelligent design believers. Evolution is just as big a step of faith as believing in a "creator" & if there was more intellectual honesty, scientists & those who have been brainwashed to believe in "billions & billions of years, something came out of nothing" would admit that they are taking that on "faith" with no provable facts other than micro-evolution.
And yes, it is getting late, I will look at your link tomorrow & I sincerely hope that there is more "proof" than what I've read to date from the evolutionists. Usually, when I hear an evolutionist debate or read their "support" or "proof" I just have to shake my head in wonder & laugh because it is such a preposterous leap of faith! [waiting]
Okay, here's a question for both of you.
IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?
Seems like I've read in several places...people believe what they want to believe...not what is true.
Oh, and by the way, I'm a Texan too (though as it relates to this thread, I'm not so sure I want to admit it).
Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM
Okay, here's a question for both of you.
IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?
Hunted them to extinction? Global warming caused from the first cave man fire, and mans huge desire to leave the biggest ... hugest ... carbon footprint. ;D
I'm currently now a Texan. If I got into a line, I would be behind Ms Sassy.
What about the Aligator? I have heard many many times the Aligator was hanging back in the time of the Dinasour and its still around.
DARWINISM
Darwin's theory brings one to have to support eugenics. Which like Hitler feels that those deemed "less than" or the bottom of the the social group should be done away with so as not to pollute the gene pool. To do away with the weak and inferior in order to make the species stronger. That is the end result of what Darwin believed.
Although it wasn't necessarily Darwin's purpose from the beginning, but that was implied in his theory, and explicitly stated in various passages from his personal writings.
Darwins work came down to him tryng to prove during a time of slavery, why white people are more superior.
The reason I point this out no one wants to discuss Darwins motives, just his evolution.
Nuh uh. No way. I'm going to have to walk away from this discussion with you, Sassy. Sorry.
I'm well aware that I push hard enough sometimes on this forum that I come off as shrill and sarcastic at times, a price I'm usually more than willing to pay for the fun of argument, but I'm not going to add "bully" to that description. Call me a sexist, but I'm particularly loathe to bully and browbeat a woman. I'm aware that, for at least a couple of folks in here, I walk the razor-edge of being persona non grata, and not only do I want to cross that line entirely and make everyone angry needlessly, but heck, I'm probably going to need y'alls help at times when my build starts.
I will, for decorum's sake, illustrate my position by very briefly addressing one of the two questions you posed to me. Since they are actually posed from some third person, let me speak to the original author rather than to you.
_______________
Q: "Where did time, space & matter come from?"
Here you've given me two choices. I can either assume that you're a completely un-selfconscious charlatan, and are throwing a blatant and obvious red herring at me, meant to divert attention away from the issue, or that you are exhibiting a terrible and fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory and basic biology. Either way, the chances of reasonable debate are non-existent.
Short Answer: This question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution.
It has no more bearing on biology than the thread-count of the sheets on my bed do.
_______________
I refuse to be put in the position of having to address a member of this forum in such a way. I'm not a bully, and I'm not a jerk.
So okay, I quit. I lose. You're the winner.
Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM
Okay, here's a question for both of you.
IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?
Dinosaurs went extinct somewhere in the neighborhood of 66 million years ago. Archaic Homo sapiens evolved between 400,000 and 250,000 years ago.
I don't claim they coexisted, so the question doesn't apply.
Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM
Seems like I've read in several places...people believe what they want to believe...not what is true.
I'm sure that applies to me too in as far as personal matters, relationships, etc. Science doesn't require "belief", though. It follows observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.
Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM
Oh, and by the way, I'm a Texan too (though as it relates to this thread, I'm not so sure I want to admit it).
I'm headed down to Austin shortly myself, so I'll be rejoining the ranks soon. Three, four months. Lookin' forward to it.
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 09:31:03 AM
DARWINISM
Darwin's theory brings one to have to support eugenics. Which like Hitler feels that those deemed "less than" or the bottom of the the social group should be done away with so as not to pollute the gene pool. To do away with the weak and inferior in order to make the species stronger. That is the end result of what Darwin believed.
In his opposition to slavery, and by pointing out that all humans are a single species, Darwin went a long way toward eliminating the ancient evil of racism and its modern incarnation, eugenics.
Here we go:
" 1. Eugenics is based on genetic principles that are independent of evolution. It is just as compatible with creationism, and in fact at least one young-earth creationist (William J. Tinkle) advocated eugenics and selective human breeding (Numbers 1992, 222-223).
2. Many eugenics arguments, such as the expected effect of selective sterilization and the results of interracial mating, are based on bad biology. Better biology education, including the teaching of evolution, can only counter the assumptions on which eugenics is based. "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006.html)
It doesn't matter how many rock-solid arguments you put out for creationism, if a person is not seeking the truth they will not find it. "Those who have ears, let them hear.." Believing in the Creator does take faith, and there is no solid evidence of His existence for those who haven't yet entered into a true relationship with Him. On the flip side, for those who believe, EVERYTHING speaks of the existence of God.
God does not wish for us to have complete, scientific evidence of His existence. Where would the opportunity for faith be, or rather, what would be the point of human life? "Blessed are those who have not seen, and yet believe."
Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?
Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
Nuh uh. No way. I'm going to have to walk away from this discussion with you, Sassy. Sorry.
I'm well aware that I push hard enough sometimes on this forum that I come off as shrill and sarcastic at times, a price I'm usually more than willing to pay for the fun of argument, but I'm not going to add "bully" to that description. Call me a sexist, but I'm particularly loathe to bully and browbeat a woman. I'm aware that, for at least a couple of folks in here, I walk the razor-edge of being persona non grata, and not only do I want to cross that line entirely and make everyone angry needlessly, but heck, I'm probably going to need y'alls help at times when my build starts.
I'm pretty tough when it comes to debate, especially on a subject that I feel very strongly about. Besides, I'm used to debating Glenn ;D
Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
I will, for decorum's sake, illustrate my position by very briefly addressing one of the two questions you posed to me. Since they are actually posed from some third person, let me speak to the original author rather than to you.
These are my own questions - that no one ever seems to answer - and all your bluster doesn't scare me or cause me to back off from wanting an answer...
_______________
Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
Q: "Where did time, space & matter come from?"
Here you've given me two choices. I can either assume that you're a completely un-selfconscious charlatan, and are throwing a blatant and obvious red herring at me, meant to divert attention away from the issue, or that you are exhibiting a terrible and fundamental ignorance of evolutionary theory and basic biology. Either way, the chances of reasonable debate are non-existent.
Short Answer: This question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution.
It has no more bearing on biology than the thread-count of the sheets on my bed do.
n* not so fast! In order to have evolution or any type of biology, you MUST have
time, space & matter - why would you call me an "un-selfconcious charlatan" for asking that question? In all evolutionary arguments, time "millions/billions" of years are required to produce change... space is required... and matter is required... can you prove how these occurred? I've studied a lot of biology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolution, creationism... a lot of evolutionists believe that "something came out of nothing" - that is a
belief not proof - it is speculation that is taken on faith to support the evolutionist's argument. Can you prove to me how they came into being? Because all the rest of your or any evolutionist's argument is based on the reality that there is time, space & matter... so, who is the charlatan? Me, for believing in creation by "faith" or you believing in evolution by "faith"?
_______________
Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 10:23:58 AM
I refuse to be put in the position of having to address a member of this forum in such a way. I'm not a bully, and I'm not a jerk.
So okay, I quit. I lose. You're the winner.
Not fair, that offends me more than you answering my legitimate questions :-\ BTW, I am really interested in knowing how the 1st "couple" (whatever type of creature that "evolved" 1st) evolved over time, at the same time, as male & female, in order to be able to perfectly pro-create at the right time, to even want, or know to pro-create (instinct????? intelligence????? desire???? where did that come from?). You can honestly tell me with a straight face that biological adaptation or mutations are so smart that over millions of years they would be able to perfectly coordinate this ability at the same time in order to keep that particular adaptation in existence?
Please don't ruin your reputation for erudite arguments by failing to answer these questions... I am truly serious, I would like a sensible response that gives more proof than "faith" in millions & billions of years, intelligent adaptations/mutations or "Mother Nature."
matter that 'contains' life is fundamentally different than the rest of matter in the universe
entropy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
simply stated
'everything eventually tends to go to a state of randomness'
But if you are talking about life, more order is created over time without apparent increase in the entropy of the environment
thus life is 'anti-entropy' and fundamentally different that any other matter known
this is all the proof I need to know that there is something that has created life and that it cannot be just a random collection of molecules getting together to form a living cell.
Nothing else in the known universe creates increasing order
randomness does not create order
'scientists' that believe in evolution ignore this fundamental flaw in their theory
oh and btw Darwin was a racist
here is the full title that is usually not quoted
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
and yes he was talking about the common use of the word "race" even as applied to humans
Dang, Windpower.. there you caught RainDog perusing and promoting racist information and topics again.... rofl
I'm trying not to get sucked into this debate, but I can't help but make a few comments.
First I don't have enough knowledge to debate either side, but I do have some observations vis a vis the "young earth" believers.
We have the distinction in Greater Cincinnati of having the Creation "Museum" (my quotes) near by. They, of course, are young earth folks and believe that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.
As I understand it, they go into the debate with the presupposition that all answers are in Genesis as far as the beginning of human, animal, and plant life are concerned. Their web site is "Answers in Genesis."
Secondly, their definition of answers is that one can literally determine time and existance from that biblical source. They use it as literal human history.
So with those precursors, God created humans first, so since dinosaurs existed and they were animals, then humans and dinosaurs existed together. Pretty straight forward, if their presuppositions are correct.
That's where we part ways. I am a man of faith, but don't believe that the biblical canon was ever intended as a history record. There is certainly history in there, but not the full and complete history of mankind.
The bible is all about the mighty acts of God in history and not a history text, or a biology text, or an archeological text. Literal intrepretations have caused a bunch of problems over the centuries.
I am not aware of any evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. And if any evidence did exist, I don't see why any credible scientist would not accept it.
To me, the whole argument is not an either/or choice. I equally object to only teaching about evolution in schools or only teaching about creationism.
Why can't we all just get along? :D
And BTW, religious studies have not been banned in our schools.
Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
matter that 'contains' life is fundamentally different than the rest of matter in the universe
entropy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy
simply stated
'everything eventually tends to go to a state of randomness'
But if you are talking about life, more order is created over time without apparent increase in the entropy of the environment
thus life is 'anti-entropy' and fundamentally different that any other matter known
this is all the proof I need to know that there is something that has created life and that it cannot be just a random collection of molecules getting together to form a living cell.
Nothing else in the known universe creates increasing order
randomness does not create order
'scientists' that believe in evolution ignore this fundamental flaw in their theory
oh and btw Darwin was a racist
here is the full title that is usually not quoted
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/preface.html
"On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life."
and yes he was talking about the common use of the word "race" even as applied to humans
touche'
Heck... let's just focus on this one:
6. When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?
Regardless of where life came from... how did it start?
Trying to grasp the context of infinity with regards to time boggles my mind.
Poppy, just a couple questions for you - historically, the Sumerians, Babylonians & Egyptians have carvings & writings that portray dinosaurs... Greek mythology speaks of dragons & in the stories of the knights of old they fight fire breathing dragons. The book of Job in the Bible speaks about leviathan, behemoth. In the book of Genesis, humans were created last.
"Dinosaur" Names, Then and Now
Name and date first written in the Bible Scientific Name (best estimate) and date the name appeared
tanniyn (dragon) before 1400 BC dinosaur 1841 AD
behemoth before 1400 BC brachiosaurus 1903 AD
Leviathan before 1400 BC kronosaurus 1901 AD
How we got these new names is interesting. In 1822, Mary Ann Mantell became the first person to discover and correctly identify a strange bone as part of a large, unknown reptile. Her husband, Dr. Gideon Mantell, later named this creature an "Iguanodon." From that time forward, these forgotten animals were given names chosen by the people who rediscovered them. Of course, the Bible, written between approximately 1450 BC and 95 AD, does not include any of these names.
Behemoth has the following attributes according to Job 40:15-24
* It "eats grass like an ox."
* It "moves his tail like a cedar." (In Hebrew, this literally reads, "he lets hang his tail like a cedar.")
* Its "bones are like beams of bronze,
His ribs like bars of iron."
* "He is the first of the ways of God."
* "He lies under the lotus trees,
In a covert of reeds and marsh."
Job chapter 41, Psalm 104:25,26 and Isaiah 27:1. This is only a partial listing—just enough to make the point.
* "No one is so fierce that he would dare stir him up."
* "Who can open the doors of his face, with his terrible teeth all around?"
* "His rows of scales are his pride, shut up tightly as with a seal; one is so near another that no air can come between them; they are joined one to another, they stick together and cannot be parted."
* "His sneezings flash forth light, and his eyes are like the eyelids of the morning. Out of his mouth go burning lights; sparks of fire shoot out. Smoke goes out of his nostrils, as from a boiling pot and burning rushes. His breath kindles coals, and a flame goes out of his mouth."
* "Though the sword reaches him, it cannot avail; nor does spear, dart, or javelin. He regards iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood. The arrow cannot make him flee; slingstones become like stubble to him. Darts are regarded as straw; he laughs at the threat of javelins."
* "On earth there is nothing like him, which is made without fear."
* Leviathan "played" in the "great and wide sea" (a paraphrase of Psalm 104 verses 25 and 26—get the exact sense by reading them yourself).
* Leviathan is a "reptile [a] that is in the sea." (Isaiah 27:1)
[a] Note: The word translated "reptile" here is the Hebrew word tanniyn. This shows that "Leviathan" was also a "tanniyn" (dragon). http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/dinos.shtml
con't on to next posting
And to continue "on-topic" concerning dinosaurs living at the same time as humans...
* "What caused the extinction of the dinosaurs?"
* The prevailing evolutionary explanation for why dinosaurs disappeared is that the impact from a massive meteorite threw up so much dust that the skies darkened, causing the climate to cool and the vegetation sustaining the giant, coldblooded herbivores to die. Then, with widespread starvation among the herbivores, carnivores were left without adequate prey on which to survive.
* However, one evolutionary book on dinosaurs explains the many problems associated with such dinosaur extinction theories: "Now comes the important question. What caused all these extinctions [of dinosaurs and other animals] at one particular point in [history]? Dozens of reasons have been suggested, some serious and sensible, others quite crazy, and yet others merely as a joke. Every year people come up with new theories on this thorny problem. The trouble is that if we are to find just one reason to account for them all, it would have to explain the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals, for many of the land-dwellers and many of the sea-dwellers went on living quite happily into the following period. Alas, no such one explanation exists."[97]
* But one such explanation does exist, according to creationist scientists. Like evolutionists, creationists believe that the dinosaurs became extinct as a consequence of some major catastrophe. But while most evolutionists believe this catastrophe may have been a colossal meteor collision with earth, creationists believe it to be the cataclysmic, worldwide deluge known as the Genesis flood.
* A recent discovery of thousands of fossilized dinosaur eggs shows that dinosaur eggs were only about the size of little grapefruits (including species which grew up to 50 feet long).[98] So from a creationist perspective, very young (thus very small) dinosaurs could have been taken aboard Noah's ark with ample room to spare, but not have survived as long in the new environment following the Genesis flood. (Interestingly, it is acknowledged by evolutionists that the eggs were rapidly buried in silt from a flood.[99])
* After the Flood, the land animals that survived on the ark would have found their new world to be much different than the one before. Due to (1) competition for food that was no longer in abundance, (2) the destruction of habitats, (3) man hunting for food, and (4) other catastrophes, many species of animals would have continued to eventually die out even after the Flood. Today numerous animal species become extinct every year — extinction seems to be the rule in earth history.[100] Thus, the group of animals now called dinosaurs could have simply died out in addition to the other animals that became extinct after the Flood.
* As described in the previous section, many sea creatures would have died out during the Genesis flood, but some would have survived. In addition, all of the land animals outside of the ark would have died, but the representatives of many of the kinds that survived on the ark would have continued to live in the new world after the Flood. Indeed, these points alone explain satisfactorily, as noted above, "the death, all at the same time, of animals living on land and of animals living in the sea; but, in both cases, of only some of those animals."
* It can thus be seen that although evolutionists believe "no such one explanation exists," they probably have not considered the creation model, which can satisfactorily explain the observed data surrounding the extinction of the dinosaurs and other animals.
* Is there a dinosaur/dragon relationship? Clearly, it seems far-fetched, at first, to imagine dinosaurs living alongside mankind. After all, Hollywood films such as Jurassic Park portray dinosaurs as vicious predators who ruled the earth. But, actually, even evolutionists believe that most dinosaurs were not the vicious predators often pictured, but rather, just vegetarians or scavengers! In fact, the American Museum of Natural History acknowledges that, based on the evidence to date, meateating dinosaurs such as T. rex, the most famous of all fearsome dinosaurs, may not have been the ferocious predators often imagined: "While the Tyrannosaurus rex is posed as if it is stalking prey, we do not in fact know for sure whether meateating dinosaurs such as this were active hunters — tracking down, attacking, and killing prey — or scavengers, feeding on the carcasses of other dinosaurs."[101] Significantly, many animals today that might look like vicious killers are often not.[102]
* Since it is known that dinosaurs indeed lived alongside other mammals in the past, there is no reason to assume that dinosaurs could not have been contemporaries with mankind as well.[103] Stories abound of ancient legends of dragons, sea serpents, and monsters, such as the Beowulf epic, and St. George and the Dragon. Tales of enormous fire-breathing monsters can be found in diverse parts of the world. Interestingly, ancient depictions of these dragons tend to exhibit one recurring observation: they bear a remarkable resemblance to today's dinosaur fossil reconstructions. Indeed, the article on dragons in the 1949 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica noted that dinosaurs are "astonishingly dragon-like." The most recent edition of the Encyclopedia notes that the belief in dragons "apparently arose without the slightest knowledge on the part of the ancients of the gigantic, prehistoric, dragon-like reptiles [dinosaurs]."[104]
* It may simply be a coincidence that, before dinosaur bones were discovered about 150 years ago, ancient people depicted creatures which highly resemble today's fossil dinosaur reconstructions. But is it necessarily a coincidence? Is it possible that such drawings and stories have a basis in real past encounters with dinosaurs, suggesting that at least some dinosaurs might have been contemporaries with mankind in the past? Even the biblical Book of Job describes some creatures whose descriptions strongly resemble a dinosaur (Job 40:15–24; Job 41). Scholars have suggested that Job may be the oldest book of the Bible; perhaps he was an eyewitness to these animals. This is one of the very few animals in the Bible that is singled out for such a detailed description, suggesting that Job knew what this animal looked like and lived alongside it.
Breathing Fire
* That large dragon-like creatures (dinosaurs) once roamed the earth is certainly evidenced by the fossil record. But breathing fire? Surely preposterous. Even if dragon stories do have basis in real past encounters with dinosaurs, it is likely these accounts have also accumulated some mythical elements over the centuries, such as breathing fire. But consider these bizarre facts:
o Some dinosaurs (specifically the Lambeo-saurus) are particularly notable for the hatchet-shaped hollow bony crest on top of their skulls. The Encyclopedia Britannica describes this crest as containing "complex chamber extensions of the breathing passage between the nostrils and the [main tube by which air enters the lungs]." The article notes that "the function of these chambers is not known," although various uses have been suggested.[105]
o One possibility is that these complex breathing chambers may have been similar in concept to the reaction chamber of an insect called the bombardier beetle. This little beetle is endowed with an ability to imitate exploding gunpowder. Little sacs at the tip of its abdomen spray a noxious fluid at boiling-hot temperatures. The fluid itself consists of toxins called quinones that react explosively (at an estimated rate of 500 bursts per second) in an internal "combustion" chamber with hydrogen peroxide, which is also produced by the beetle and stored in a separate body compartment.[106]
* With complex chambers in their breathing passages, could certain dinosaurs have had the same kind of defense system operating from their heads as the bombardier beetle (i.e., some type of fire-breathing capabilities)? To date, there has been no other definitive explanation for these dinosaurs' strange head-crest chambers.
http://www.foolishfaith.com/book_chap3_dino.asp
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 12:52:06 PM
Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?
Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins. These are philosophical or religious questions. Once again, this question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution. The claim of God as cause, which I assume is what you're getting at, raises the question of what caused God. If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 12:52:06 PM
Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?
Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins. These are philosophical or religious questions. Once again, this question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution. The claim of God as cause, which I assume is what you're getting at, raises the question of what caused God. If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
Raindog, you keep mentioning "science" & evidence supporting evolution... please, I beg of you, post some of the valid evidence supporting evolution... not speculation, not assumptions based on millions & billions of years that no one can prove, not theories, not hypotheses - what is the
REAL evidence? And how has it been "scientifically" proven?
Seems to me that the current "science" is based on assumptions that all the laws of time, space & matter have been the same from the beginning... how can that be proven? Faith? So I choose to believe in a Creator who is the great "I AM" - who always was, is & will always be. Do you believe in the "Cosmos" or what?
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM
n* not so fast! In order to have evolution or any type of biology, you MUST have time, space & matter - why would you call me an "un-selfconcious charlatan" for asking that question? In all evolutionary arguments, time "millions/billions" of years are required to produce change... space is required... and matter is required... can you prove how these occurred? I've studied a lot of biology, anatomy, physiology, genetics, evolution, creationism... a lot of evolutionists believe that "something came out of nothing" - that is a belief not proof - it is speculation that is taken on faith to support the evolutionist's argument. Can you prove to me how they came into being? Because all the rest of your or any evolutionist's argument is based on the reality that there is time, space & matter... so, who is the charlatan? Me, for believing in creation by "faith" or you believing in evolution by "faith"?
I didn't call you an un-selfconscious charlatan. I was speaking of the original author of that ridiculous list of questions, in an attempt to illustrate why there was no real response but disdain, and why I really didn't want to be forced into doing the same with a member of this forum.
The argument that evolution somehow claims "something from nothing" is a full on straw man.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming and is expanded daily. Belief in evolution does not require faith at all, as long as you are willing to spend the time studying it.
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM
Not fair, that offends me more than you answering my legitimate questions :-\ BTW, I am really interested in knowing how the 1st "couple" (whatever type of creature that "evolved" 1st) evolved over time, at the same time, as male & female, in order to be able to perfectly pro-create at the right time, to even want, or know to pro-create
You assume a jump to males and females from no sexual reproduction at all. It is a huge, slow, diverse range of thousands of different reproduction mechanisms, but I'll gladly disrespect and compact it down nearly to the point of silliness for brevity's sake:
First there were simple asexually reproducing organisms that found benefits from swapping genes (as bacteria still do today) Then full-fledged sexual reproduction without sexes (The sending out of spores, as amoebas and slime molds still do today). Then slow differentiation between sex cells but not individuals. Then slow differentiation between individuals to specialize in having one or the other sex. Then to ever greater differences between males and females that we find in vertebrates, and mammals, such as ourselves.
Happy with that? No, I didn't think so. I'm not a biologist, so my understanding is only basic.
Problem is, I think you're assuming the question to be unanswerable, which it isn't, and would reject even the most comprehensive explanation offered.
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM
Please don't ruin your reputation for erudite arguments...
Gee, thanks! ;)
Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
entropy:
This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems. The fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them.
Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 01:56:28 PM
oh and btw Darwin was a racist
The mention of "favored races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. There is no moral judgment involved.
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 03:57:05 PM
Raindog, you keep mentioning "science" & evidence supporting evolution... please, I beg of you, post some of the valid evidence supporting evolution... not speculation, not assumptions based on millions & billions of years that no one can prove, not theories, not hypotheses - what is the REAL evidence? And how has it been "scientifically" proven?
Hey, y'all have had me peckin' away at this for a little while now. I know it's Saturday and all, but I have a couple of things I gotta run do.
Real evidence? Look up these terms:
"Fossil evidence", "Homologies", "Distribution in time and space", and "evidence by example" as they relate to the theory of evolution.
Okay? That'll scratch the surface.
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 03:57:05 PM
Seems to me that the current "science" is based on assumptions that all the laws of time, space & matter have been the same from the beginning... how can that be proven? Faith? So I choose to believe in a Creator who is the great "I AM" - who always was, is & will always be. Do you believe in the "Cosmos" or what?
Now I
know I'm burned out. It's not you, it's me, but I don't know what to say to that. Hopefully I'll heal. ;D
Catch ya later!
Quote from: glenn kangiser on February 20, 2010, 02:01:32 PM
Dang, Windpower.. there you caught RainDog perusing and promoting racist information and topics again.... rofl
:P
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM
Not fair, that offends me more than you answering my legitimate questions :-\ BTW, I am really interested in knowing how the 1st "couple" (whatever type of creature that "evolved" 1st) evolved over time, at the same time, as male & female, in order to be able to perfectly pro-create at the right time, to even want, or know to pro-create
quote from Raindog:
You assume a jump to males and females from no sexual reproduction at all. It is a huge, slow, diverse range of thousands of different reproduction mechanisms, but I'll gladly disrespect and compact it down nearly to the point of silliness for brevity's sake:
First there were simple asexually reproducing organisms that found benefits from swapping genes (as bacteria still do today) Then full-fledged sexual reproduction without sexes (The sending out of spores, as amoebas and slime molds still do today). Then slow differentiation between sex cells but not individuals. Then slow differentiation between individuals to specialize in having one or the other sex. Then to ever greater differences between males and females that we find in vertebrates, and mammals, such as ourselves.
Happy with that? No, I didn't think so. I'm not a biologist, so my understanding is only basic.
Problem is, I think you're assuming the question to be unanswerable, which it isn't, and would reject even the most comprehensive explanation offered.Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 12:57:27 PM
Please don't ruin your reputation for erudite arguments...
Gee, thanks! ;)
I guess I misunderstood you when you were calling the person I quoted with all the questions, as being the "charlatan" - I disagree, I think he had some very valid questions.
Your explanation is indeed very basic & I'm aware that is the basic argument evolutionists always use but you still haven't answered my original question... if you have only some of the genetic info for something, it is only partial - how does it work?
Take some non-biological items - like a watch or a car - it took someone creating them - if one part is missing, it won't work. Those are very simple machines compared to even a one-celled organism - have you ever studied the flagellum? It is incredibly complex - so how do minuscule parts of even a one celled organism, over time, get together & start working together when they are just random parts to begin with? Take the cell, in & of itself, that, too, is incredibly complex - look at the billions of different types of cells in the world - how did all the little pieces for each cell eventually get together & start working in a cohesive way? It boggles my mind that they randomly got together over millions & billions of years - where's the proof? That comes back to the more complex - even asexual reproduction is complex - but supposedly evolution eventually created human beings or the most simplest forms of life that need the male/female to pro-create... so how did a male & female both evolve at the same time to perform the complex act of procreation to bring a new life into the world just like themselves - where it took 1/2 the genetic info from the male & 1/2 the genetic info from the female & joined it together to create a replica of itself???
And where is the proof? All I keep hearing are the old, tired suppositions that are based on speculation because
there is no true scientific proof!
I think where we are going matters more than where we came from.
I tend to believe things I can see, feel, touch, poke, etc.
At the same time I find myself saying prayers.
How it all came to be in the beginning; who the heck knows.
I don't think there's any one correct answer.
"This is an attempt to claim that the second law of thermodynamics implies an inevitable increase in entropy even in open systems. The fact is that, unless "left to themselves" means "not acted upon by an any outside influence," disorder of systems can decrease. And since outside influence is more often the rule in biological systems, order can and does increase in them."
No, you do not understand. There is an 'outside influence' on everything.
For example in a plant light creates chemical energy that the plant uses to keep on living. Sunlight impacting non-living matter causes a return to randomness eg a dead leaf left in the sun will dry up and enventually turn to dust (randomized carbon molecules, traces of minerals etc etc)
http://www.entropylaw.com/entropy2ndlaw.html
Clausius coined the term "entropy" to refer to the dissipated potential and the second law, in its most general form, states that the world acts spontaneously to minimize potentials (or equivalently maximize entropy), and with this, active end-directedness or time-asymmetry was, for the first time, given a universal physical basis. The balance equation of the second law, expressed as S > 0, says that in all natural processes the entropy of the world always increases, and thus whereas with the first law there is no time, and the past, present, and future are indistinguishable, the second law, with its one-way flow, introduces the basis for telling the difference.
The active nature of the second law is intuitively easy to grasp and empirically demonstrate. If a glass of hot liquid, for example, as shown in Figure 3, is placed in a colder room a potential exists and a flow of heat is spontaneously produced from the cup to the room until it is minimized (or the entropy is maximized) at which point the temperatures are the same and all flows stop.
"The mention of "favored races" in the subtitle of Origin of Species merely refers to variations within species which survive to leave more offspring. It does not imply racism. There is no moral judgment involved."
You are incorrect.
From Charles Darwin's book "The Descent of Man"
quote
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. unquote
sounds like racism and eugenics to me
Quote from: RainDog on February 20, 2010, 03:47:58 PM
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 20, 2010, 12:52:06 PM
Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?
Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins. These are philosophical or religious questions. Once again, this question is completely irrelevant with respect to the evidence supporting evolution. The claim of God as cause, which I assume is what you're getting at, raises the question of what caused God. If God does not need a cause, then by the same reasoning, neither does the universe.
To ignore ultimate origns how is that scientific?
Quote from: MountainDon on February 20, 2010, 05:11:35 PM
I think where we are going matters more than where we came from.
I tend to believe things I can see, feel, touch, poke, etc.
At the same time I find myself saying prayers.
How it all came to be in the beginning; who the heck knows.
I don't think there's any one correct answer.
So, with your conclusion, MtnDon, who's truth is true? Is everything relative? Is your statement "I don't think there's any one correct answer" true? Your worldview does effect the way you think & live...
Quote of Darwin's
Origin of the Species that Windpower posted...
"It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race"
Darwin undermines his own evolutionary theory with just that statement!
Quote from: MountainDon on February 20, 2010, 05:11:35 PM
I don't think there's any one correct answer.
I firmly believe that. How could anyone possibly know the details?
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 04:59:01 PM
a statistical measure of the disorder of a closed system expressed
And where is the proof? All I keep hearing are the old, tired suppositions that are based on speculation because there is no true scientific proof!
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA202.html)
You asked, and I provided.
Sassy, I'm sure, at this point, that you'll remain unconvinced by any and all of the evidence. If you want to abdicate your birthright to scientific progress, that's entirely up to you. I do, however, think it's somewhat presumptuous to expect me to continue to provide evidence and argument when you've decided beforehand to reject it.
How about we flip this? Your turn. You provide me with demonstrable evidence of Creationism. Give me one thing, any kind of observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, rather than repeatedly positing these talking points designed to create doubt, when there is none in the scientific field.
Deal?
I'm reading that website right now :)
Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 05:13:19 PM
No, you do not understand. There is an 'outside influence' on everything.
Sorry. You can't just grab a thermodynamic quantity from physics and apply it that way to the study of living organisms. It doesn't work like that.
Quote from: Windpower on February 20, 2010, 05:13:19 PM
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. unquote
sounds like racism and eugenics to me
Not at all. It's a scientific observation. Do you doubt that traits can be passed along genetically? Seriously?
It does sound a little mean-spirited, though, doesn't it? Well, until you remember that it was written in the context of 19th century England. They weren't bound by our highly developed sense of political correctness, y'know.
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 05:26:43 PM
So, with your conclusion, MtnDon, who's truth is true? Is everything relative? Is your statement "I don't think there's any one correct answer" true? Your worldview does effect the way you think & live...
I seriously doubt we will ever know who's truth is
the truth. It would be interesting and satisfying, I think, to know how our universe came to be.
One group of us is most comfortable believing the Big Bang theory, that we're more or less accidental creatures of what is called evolution. Many other groups of us are more comfortable to believe in an assortment of Gods or assorted divine theories. :-\ The ancient Greeks had 12 main Gods, IIRC, and a sub-cast of many more. Today we refer to that as Greek Mythology. In another few thousand years, if we humans are still around (God willing? If so, whose?), who knows what mythology our period will be known as?
Sassy
QuoteIn the book of Genesis, humans were created last.
I stand corrected. :-[
However, biblical literalists figure that creation took 6 24 hr. days, so not a whole lot of time between animals and people.
Besides, the first will be last, and the last will be first. ;)
I asked......"Every effect requires a cause, what caused the first effect?
The Answer......" Science does not deal with matters of ultimate origins"
I find it funny being in a building forum that someone would skip on the critical foundation of science such as what caused the first effect.
Quote from: MountainDon on February 20, 2010, 06:53:18 PM
One group of us is most comfortable believing the Big Bang theory, that we're more or less accidental creatures of what is called evolution. Many other groups of us are more comfortable to believe in an assortment of Gods or assorted divine theories. :-\ The ancient Greeks had 12 main Gods, IIRC, and a sub-cast of many more. Today we refer to that as Greek Mythology. In another few thousand years, if we humans are still around (God willing? If so, whose?), who knows what mythology our period will be known as?
What's interesting is this idea that evolution and religion are somehow mutually exclusive. The theory of evolution doesn't attempt to prove or disprove the existence of a higher power. No one, for instance, debates whether plate tectonics contradict religion.
Science is concerned with the study of our physical universe. God transcends natural laws. God's existence is not a scientific question.
The Catholic Church's official position is that faith and scientific findings regarding human evolution are not in conflict.
I believe God works in a very physical way, that even 'miracles' with no scientific explanation actually DO have a scientific explanation; one that is beyond our current knowledge and understanding. I believe evolution and creationism can and very likely do go hand-in-hand. But, I don't think anyone ever has or ever will come close to understanding how God set the whole process in motion... Arguing about it is pretty pointless. ;)
The Pope may believe in evolution & thus the Catholic church will follow along, but there is not a consensus about that among those who believe in the Bible. I believe in micro-evolution - it is seen on a regular basis - it helps the species adapt to various circumstances, but macro-evolution - jumping from one species to another, acquiring increasing complexity - what is seen today is that changes/errors in the DNA often cause catastrophic problems with the organism. The only way evolutionary scientists can ultimately support their theory is to throw in millions & billions of years and there is no way to prove or dispute that scientifically... no matter how much scientists introduce changes in a species, it can only be changed to a certain point & no more & if left alone, will revert back to it's original state. (ie highly bred cows or plants end up becoming weaker, more prone to disease, often sterile)
I've spent the last three hours perusing the site you posted, Raindog... http://www.talkorigins.org/ (http://www.talkorigins.org/) I know it would take me days, weeks, years, to really assimilate all of what they use as their defense/support/examples for evolution... they try to use the scientific method, but it is really impossible, so they still resort back to conjecture, suppositions, theories, and of course, millions & billions of years. I have a lot of background in the study of evolution as I had to study it while going through the nursing program - biology, microbiology, anatomy, physiology, inorganic & organic chemistry. And I've been taught it in one way or another throughout my years of school. Of course, I haven't studied it in depth like someone who has a doctorate in it or spent their lives pursuing it. But I've studied it on my own throughout the years...
Their explanation of micro/macro-evolution - they totally miss the point of "irreducible complexity" - I mentioned that before - how does a mutation/adaptation that occurs so gradually due to the complex steps to go from one point to the other - how does that organism continue on with a change that is not complete & more than likely would destroy it until the complete change occurred? And how do several organisms end up making the same changes? Which leads to how do you get a compatible male/female organism to evolve at the same time in order to procreate? All I read was about complex tables of phylogeny, trees, this might have happened, that could have happened, we speculate this could have happened, we theorize, postulate, hypothesize...
In reading about Archaeopteryx as a transitional fossil between reptiles & birds, there seems to be much conflicting info by countless scientists. And of course, they really tear into the Christian writers who have questioned the evidence. If someone were to find a fossil of an armadillo in the future, what might they make of that?
No matter how they try to explain evolution/adaptation/mutation, how does the organism survive the 1st changes that could upset the whole life process?
You asked me to support my viewpoint - easy "In the beginning God created the heavens & the earth & made man a living soul."
Here is a link you might look at - tear it up to your heart's content, if you can... http://www.doesgodexist.org/ (http://www.doesgodexist.org/)
Quote from: Ernest T. Bass on February 20, 2010, 10:19:26 PM
I believe God works in a very physical way, that even 'miracles' with no scientific explanation actually DO have a scientific explanation; one that is beyond our current knowledge and understanding. I believe evolution and creationism can and very likely do go hand-in-hand. But, I don't think anyone ever has or ever will come close to understanding how God set the whole process in motion... Arguing about it is pretty pointless. ;)
I also believe that God works in a very physical way in our lives.
I don't really consider this "arguing" c* but an important discussion of origins - it could have eternal consequences! :o
(http://www.brightok.net/~cyscott1-ss/pics/625084.JPG)
:)
Hey.. wait a minute. You mean the Flintstones is not a documentary?!?!
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 10:39:36 PM
Here is a link you might look at - tear it up to your heart's content, if you can... http://www.doesgodexist.org/ (http://www.doesgodexist.org/)
Sassy, I do hope that you aren't under the impression that I'm arguing against the existence of a higher power.
That's never been my object.
I'm at odds with the faulty methodology and tactics, the fallacious arguments and twisting of data used to discredit evolution.
I've no hidden agenda.
Possibly you are related to the missing link, like me, RainDog? [waiting]
My friends tell me that I have something missing; not sure if it is a link, though.
Quote from: RainDog on February 21, 2010, 08:45:36 AM
Quote from: Sassy on February 20, 2010, 10:39:36 PM
Here is a link you might look at - tear it up to your heart's content, if you can... http://www.doesgodexist.org/ (http://www.doesgodexist.org/)
Sassy, I do hope that you aren't under the impression that I'm arguing against the existence of a higher power.
That's never been my object.
I'm at odds with the faulty methodology and tactics, the fallacious arguments and twisting of data used to discredit evolution.
I've no hidden agenda.
I'm glad to hear that, Raindog... the question is what higher power will you follow or believe? Or is it just out there? Those were questions that nagged me all my life - I feel at peace that I've found the truth...
There are so many questions that don't & won't have answers until we get on the other side of eternity. I feel the same way with evolutionists & their methods - not that all their research is wrong - but the cop-out that they MUST resort to of millions & billions of years that cannot be tested. If there was a big bang - what was the atmosphere like, etc? Which also points to a beginning. If there was nothing, how do you get something out of nothing? I could go on - that's why I will always consider evolution a "belief" that takes a step of faith while not ruling out that ALL the science is wrong...
First causes are unknowable by either party, maybe someday. There is a difference in science and religion here, religion explains, science begins with "I don't know". "I don't know" is not very satisfying to someone wanting an explanation. We like to know, or to feel we know.
Would God work outside of his rules in second causes? For me, no, but I've seen quite a range of opinions. Could a creator work through an evolutionary model? No problem in my world, or in any of the mainstream religions that I'm aware of. This actually goes back to Augustine. If the book of nature shows that our understanding of the Bible is in error, we need to correct our understanding otherwise it will look foolish and become a footnote in history. That is obviously not a direct quote, but you'll recognize it when you sift through his volumes. This is a valid concern. It is good to understand the difference in hypothesis and theory.
Newton was a church canon, Galileo's acid tongue might have caused him difficulty but he was the friend of 2 popes, Keppler, Mendel... science was borne out of the study, by churchmen as often as anyone, of what Augustine called "the book of nature". What better way to understand and grow closer to one's creator. I was looking for some info on LeMaitre, the priest who formulated the Big Bang Theory, and happened upon a well written page;
http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/NormLevan/s3-annot.htm
An interesting side read would be to look up Draper and White. This is the pair that started us down the muddy road we find ourselves on here. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive, this is hamartia and it does bind. There are better ways to think and to think about others.
Hamartia, huh? College boy.
"We've been attacked, by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." - Pastor Ray Mummert
;D
Well thought out discussion, Don_P, although I have some questions...
Ok, lets say that there is a deity who originally created the world, who set up certain laws for time, space & matter... that would assume supernatural creation/intelligent design... if we then discounted the supernatural in creation we would deny the deity which would bring us back to a totally naturalistic/material universe - random, with no intelligent design but what somehow is birthed out of time, space & matter, but we don't know where time, space & matter came from either or how it came into being.
Reducing science down to a totally naturalistic/material process possibly denies the most important component of science... no scientist can truly explain how the life force came about, they break it down to a lot of chemical & electrical interactions & propose different explanations. That causes the scientist who discounts supernatural processes in the hypothesis to have to resort to millions & billions of years.
I believe that the Creator did put into effect natural as well as moral laws when he created the universe - you see that every moment. Most of the time natural laws work in the way they were intended to work. But I believe, if there is a creator, then that creator or deity would have the option to do what it wanted if it so desired - you see that pointed out in the Scriptures when the Creator asks the clay if he can tell the potter what to do. And no, naturalistic/material "science" would not be able to empirically explain or prove the supernatural process.
What I am trying so say & feel so woefully inadequate to do so, is, if there is a supernatural component to our world, our existence - leaving it out of the equation leaves out a large chunk of empirical evidence. Just like evolutionists can't truly support their argument for evolution except by adding the time factor into it.
At the website you shared, there is a section that discusses Intelligent design & irreducible complexity. The writer discounts Behe's argument for irreducible complexity & then takes Behe's example of a mouse trap being of no use as a mouse trap if one of the 5 components was removed. The writer goes on to say, "oh, but you can break down the mousetrap into smaller, useful components like a paper clip, or a paper weight or a key chain..." yes, those are all useful components in themselves but they still don't make a mousetrap if one of them is missing - the argument is totally nonsense... http://www.astronomynotes.com/science-religion/NormLevan/s7-annot.htm
Trying to explain the origins of life while denying the possibility that a creator could have brought into existence things as they are today with laws set in place to allow for only subtle changes over time, ie micro evolution, does not seem scientific to me. Claiming that things have evolved over billions & billions of years with millions of macro evolutionary changes has never been empirically proven - so therefore, it is still a supposition, a belief in "time", a theory - but not the scientific fact that I keep reading evolutionary scientists claim over & over again.
If you are a deist or a theist or a believer in intelligent design, the supernatural has to be taken into the equation or you only have part of the picture. A naturalist/material evolutionist has to add TIME into the equation or it doesn't work. Seems like TIME then takes on the creative/supernatural force...
Hamartia ??? I had to look that up... hamartia, the Greek word for error or failure, used by Aristotle in hisPoetics (4th century BCE) to designate the false step that leads the protagonist in a tragedy to his or her downfall. The term has often been translated as 'tragic flaw', but this misleadingly confines the cause of the reversal of fortunes to some personal defect of character, whereas Aristotle's emphasis was rather upon the protagonist's action, which could be brought about by misjudgement, ignorance, or some other cause. or better yet, "a defect in tissue combination?"
So, what are you trying to say, Don_P? [waiting]
Raindog, your streak is unbroken, but thanks ;D.
I like the word, its hard to get a handle on it. It doesn't translate well. We've translated it as all of the things you mentioned. King James scholars translated that Greek word as "sin", but we've since attached a whole lot of baggage to that word. I like "missing the mark". When we do, and then when we build upon that miss, it binds us.
I'm ill equipped to debate the science, I've read and listened and paid attention as I dug in the earth. The current science does not disturb me. Is it right? I don't know, time will tell. If you believe that the speed of light is constant, they are looking into some pretty distant time out there now. Why does the earth need to be young? Or, what if your heels are locked around that immovable spot and they show that just that one detail is not so?
I hadn't read that website before posting, I got there when google popped up with a pic of Lemaitre with Einstein. I read the one page, it seemed good and I posted. I've just enjoyed reading those pages though, I think he speaks better than I could.
Quote from: rick91351 on February 20, 2010, 09:23:14 AM
Quote from: n74tg on February 20, 2010, 08:33:02 AM
Okay, here's a question for both of you.
IF dinosaurs and man coexisted WHY are dinosaurs extinct and man still in existence?
Hunted them to extinction? Global warming caused from the first cave man fire, and mans huge desire to leave the biggest ... hugest ... carbon footprint. ;D
---which caused the dinosaurs to stampede en-masse like lemmings off the edge of the earth. After all, the earth is flat, right?
It's easier for some people to answer "God did it" and end the discussion.
This Ig Nobel prize winning paper explains why people completely untrained and unskilled in biology, or even scientific method, from Talk Radio hosts and internet political pundits to the turkey-neck preacher out of the Church of Christ's Own Parking Facility in DeLand, Florida and Joe Sixpack down at the corner bar, feel that they are competent to argue about how change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next occurs with the 99.985% of the world's experts in relevant fields of earth and life sciences.
The Dunning-Kruger Effect
Unskilled and Unaware of It: How Difficulties in Recognizing One's Own Incompetence Lead to Inflated Self-Assessments
"We propose that those with limited knowledge in a domain suffer a dual burden: Not only do they reach mistaken conclusions and make regrettable errors, but their incompetence robs them of the ability to realize it."
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf (http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.64.2655&rep=rep1&type=pdf)
And before anyone gets upset, this can be applied to either side of the argument, depending. I've certainly made my share of unsophisticated statements.
Quote from: Sassy on February 21, 2010, 09:24:13 PMReducing science down to a totally naturalistic/material process possibly denies the most important component of science... no scientist can truly explain how the life force came about, they break it down to a lot of chemical & electrical interactions & propose different explanations.
This presumes that in order to be true, science must have an answer for every question. To the contrary, the scientist can answer "I don't know" and be completely consistent, without yielding any credence to religious mythology. I believe that the universe is knowable and consistent with the scientific method; that does not mean science must explain all phenomena
now.
RainDog,
Interesting read. Do you think that's the reason George H. Bush feels he made no mistakes as president? ;)
Anyone ever stop to think that each persons reality may be based on what they can see? It's easy to spout wisdom but if the person on the reciving end can't see it then to them it may sound like BS. There is a God perhaps more than one, or if only one, maybe He has some helpers but I feel it nearly every day. Too many unexplained things happen for it to all be an accident. I was never much for church but churches are by men for men atleast those I've seen. It's sad that so many people only see the church(s).
Seems that if I believe in God and f I happen to be a church goer obviously must lacking the inteligence area, according to certain aspects of this thread. Plus I fit this mold and therefore I must think that President Bush made no mistakes.
Seeing that I lack so much I must not have really anything to offer.
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 23, 2010, 01:21:55 PM
Seems that if I believe in God and f I happen to be a church goer obviously must lacking the inteligence area, according to certain aspects of this thread. Plus I fit this mold and therefore I must think that President Bush made no mistakes.
Seeing that I lack so much I must not have really anything to offer.
There are highly intelligent church-goers and drooling idiot atheists, of course.
That was a cheap shot, Stinkerbell.
You know that.
ScottA,
Excellent point. Where some people see Gods work in nature, others see natural processes that have evolved over millennia.
Stinkerbell,
I think it goes both ways. I have some in-laws who are born again Christians so my wife and I always get lectured on God and how they're going to heaven and we're going to hell and how can we be so stupid as to NOT believe.
Pagancelt,
I do not think I could be accused of thumping in the forum. Yes I have shared my belief here and I also know others here share the same view. Although I have always been stumped why others can not see what I see, I do not believe I have indicate how inferior they are for that or that I have been dismissive or even backhanded their lack of intelect. Yes, I have had a few miscommunications in the past but have always worked them out because of mutual respect. I think this thread has reached in a way that is not just fun banter among its memebers but has made some backhanded snide comments that has been delieverd in the indirect way they were meant.
As for going to Hell. I have no idea if you are going to Hell. Final judgement is not for me or anyone but God to decide. Sure I can make some personal judgements/opinons of you, but just not final judgement ;)
Stinkerbell,
Never took your posts as thumping, rather it's you expressing your beliefs. I was using my experience with my in-laws to demonstrate how some in the believing crowd can view those in the non-believing crowd as stupid, ignorant, etc. just as people in the non-believing crowd can view the believers in the same manner. Like I said, it goes both ways.
The article Raindog posted related to laypeople discussing topics of such complexity with airs of expertise while they ultimately have no expertise in the fields they're discussing. This lack of expertise then causes them to fail seeing their arguments are failing. This goes for both sides of this debate.
Quote from: ScottA on February 23, 2010, 01:04:16 PM
Too many unexplained things happen for it to all be an accident.
I have never understood this logic. The absence of an explanation does not imply proof of a creator/higher power/god. "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, but people seem to want to always fill in the blanks, even when it is with unsupported mythology.
Quote from: Pox Eclipse on February 23, 2010, 03:49:28 PM
Quote from: ScottA on February 23, 2010, 01:04:16 PM
Too many unexplained things happen for it to all be an accident.
I have never understood this logic. The absence of an explanation does not imply proof of a creator/higher power/god. "I don't know" is a perfectly good answer, but people seem to want to always fill in the blanks, even when it is with unsupported mythology.
What we have here is a failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. And that's the way they want it.
It's not logic it's feeling. I can't explain God but I can feel him.
Quote from: StinkerBell on February 23, 2010, 01:51:42 PM
Pagancelt,
I do not think I could be accused of thumping in the forum. Yes I have shared my belief here and I also know others here share the same view. Although I have always been stumped why others can not see what I see, I do not believe I have indicate how inferior they are for that or that I have been dismissive or even backhanded their lack of intelect. Yes, I have had a few miscommunications in the past but have always worked them out because of mutual respect. I think this thread has reached in a way that is not just fun banter among its memebers but has made some backhanded snide comments that has been delieverd in the indirect way they were meant.
As for going to Hell. I have no idea if you are going to Hell. Final judgement is not for me or anyone but God to decide. Sure I can make some personal judgements/opinons of you, but just not final judgement ;)
Stinkerbell, nobody here is being deliberately offensive to other forum members, from what I can see. I myself spend
easily half of the time it takes for me to post in editing out all the bite and punch from my statements in a desperate attempt to not offend.
In all fairness, I do think that this needs to be considered:
What does someone who knows absolutely nothing about genetics and evolution
GET when they argue evolution with virtually
every single expert in applicable sciences in the whole world? I mean, seriously.
The laypeople on both sides of the issue, in as far as my experience has gone, use the same talking points, irreducible complexity being a prime example. When countered with something that contradicts their talking point(s) they refuse excepting that they've entered into an argument they don't fully understand. And here I see the truth of the article as they cannot understand that they've gotten in over their heads and admit they do not understand, rather they continue using the same arguments over and over failing to see they've lost the discussion.
I am neither a biologist nor a geneticist, although in college I did take some courses in these fields although this by no means qualifies me to represent either academic field, and none of the people I've discussed religion with are experts either. Most religious people I've met aren't even well read regarding the bible but appear to feel their solid beliefs qualifies them to discuss the bible as if they were experts. I actually enjoy discussing matter of faith with people who fully understand the depths of their religions. We use what limited knowledge we have and fill in the gaps with personal experience. And here is where it gets tricky.
My brother in law is born again. When he walks outside he sees God's majesty all around him. The gentle breeze and the ocean waves are all testaments to God's greatness...for my brother in law. When I walk outside, however, I see natural processes. He sees the bible as THE word of God while I see it as a book written by men attempting to explain their world as they experienced it at that time. He sees me as a blasphemer while I see him as a religious zealot. He shares the beer he brews with me and we generally enjoy each others company and we acknowledge he has as much chances of making me a believer as I have if making him reject his faith. In essence, we do not hold our religious differences against each other.
Quote from: pagancelt on February 24, 2010, 08:40:18 AM
The laypeople on both sides of the issue, in as far as my experience has gone, use the same talking points, irreducible complexity being a prime example. When countered with something that contradicts their talking point(s) they refuse excepting that they've entered into an argument they don't fully understand. And here I see the truth of the article as they cannot understand that they've gotten in over their heads and admit they do not understand, rather they continue using the same arguments over and over failing to see they've lost the discussion.
I am neither a biologist nor a geneticist, although in college I did take some courses in these fields although this by no means qualifies me to represent either academic field, and none of the people I've discussed religion with are experts either. Most religious people I've met aren't even well read regarding the bible but appear to feel their solid beliefs qualifies them to discuss the bible as if they were experts. I actually enjoy discussing matter of faith with people who fully understand the depths of their religions. We use what limited knowledge we have and fill in the gaps with personal experience. And here is where it gets tricky.
My brother in law is born again. When he walks outside he sees God's majesty all around him. The gentle breeze and the ocean waves are all testaments to God's greatness...for my brother in law. When I walk outside, however, I see natural processes. He sees the bible as THE word of God while I see it as a book written by men attempting to explain their world as they experienced it at that time. He sees me as a blasphemer while I see him as a religious zealot. He shares the beer he brews with me and we generally enjoy each others company and we acknowledge he has as much chances of making me a believer as I have if making him reject his faith. In essence, we do not hold our religious differences against each other.
What I'm seeing in America now, in all the blah-blah against climate change, evolution, etc, is the breakdown of a consensus that the pursuit of knowledge is a good. Essentially a
war on expertise.
As novelist David Brin puts it:
As part of a more general assault on the very notion of expertise, the narrative starts with a truism that is actually true:
"Not every smart person is wise..."
only then extrapolates it, implicitly, to a blatant falsehood
"all smartypants are unwise, all the time; and my uninformed opinion is equal to any expert testimony."
Agreed. That could be a whole new topic in itself; why do the powers that be want to promote ignorance? Or who is promoting the ignorance and for what purpose?
Quote from: pagancelt on February 24, 2010, 10:01:12 AM
Agreed. That could be a whole new topic in itself; why do the powers that be want to promote ignorance? Or who is promoting the ignorance and for what purpose?
The article that I swiped that David Brin quote from contains more on just that, in the context of climate change controversy.
"Let there be no mistake, this is all about power, and the struggle goes way back. In Britain, the "Boffin Principle" long held that technical people have no business making policy suggestions to their betters. In America, waves of anti-intellectual populism - like the 19th Century Know Nothing Party - were deliberately stoked by aristocracies who saw the new, mental elites as a threat. "
http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise (http://open.salon.com/blog/david_brin/2010/02/09/the_real_struggle_behind_climate_change_-_a_war_on_expertise)
Interesting read. Let me digest it for a while before I reply.
RainDog,
The dumbing down of the middle and lower class workers of American society has been going on for decades, just get some old reading and arithmetic primers from the late eighteen hundreds and you'll see what I mean, and has accelerated since the end of WWII.
Elected government officials don't want an educated electorate. This is why rather than having debates about pertinent topics we get to hear pundits discuss the clothes and hair style of Sarah Palin, or how Barak Obama is so articulate. Sure, the pundits and talking heads touch on a few "key" issues, but by and large most of it is useless drivel. They pick the "key" issues anyway so how "key" are these issues in the end? Even political speeches now are nothing more than the same mindless talking points repeated over and over. An educated electorate would ask politicians tough questions, demand their politicians fulfill campaign promises and even force politicians to represent the voters who elected them. Ignorant boobs only care about cheap cable TV and gas. Ignorance is bliss, right?
Most Americans are ignorant because public schools operate under mandates handed down by the government. These mandates are made by members of Congress who are beholden to the wealthy and corporations who funded their election campaigns. Thus members of Congress write laws to protect the interests of the wealthy, corporations, and Congressional members. This means they need the American people to be a bunch of barely literate chumps who listen to the crap spewing forth from politicians mouths and say "We need moral fiber in Washington DC...he has my vote!" Meanwhile they're out hiring whores, chasing underage male pages around for sex, soliciting gay men in public restrooms, lying, cheating, stealing, and the American people sit back and think, "At least they're keeping cable rates low. God knows I don't want to miss an episode of CSI."
In three paragraphs, pagancelt just rendered an entire year of high school civics moot. The "Schoolhouse Rock" version would be really boring. Hey! Who's on American Idol nowadays?
I think pagancelt about covered it - no need for me to comment.. :)
waggin, glenn,
Thank you for your comments.
PC, I'll be runnin' down a copy of Anti-Intellectualism in American Life by Richard Hofstadter. Hopin' the library has a copy.
http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170 (http://www.amazon.com/Anti-Intellectualism-American-Life-Richard-Hofstadter/dp/0394703170)
There are more recent works available on the subject, but from what I can ascertain this is the one I should start with, and though written in '63, still applies. I'll try to drop you a quick review when I've read it.
RD,
Looking forward to it, thanks.