Mod Idea: Simulating surfaces -> Borg Technology -> Twinkie Physics -> Worldviews

[Suicide Junkie]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If the weight of evidence points towards something, and using it gives results why would you not use it?
If evidence builds up against the current theories, then a better one will be developed.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

These statements show that you are accepting some of the basic precepts of 'Scientific Materialism' and I wonder if you really believe them if you examine them.

Ok, perhaps a better wording: "If evidence builds up against the current theories, then people will work on developing a better one."

This is the other assumption of Scientific Materialism, and oddly enough, of the 'Religious' viewpoint as well... that we can understand anything and everything. Only the theoretical physicists are finally breaking through this one. Once in a while you'll see a physicist say something like this in an article on the latest weird, exotic, and baffling cosmological theories -- "The Universe might not be merely stranger than we imagine, but stranger than we can imagine."

Surely an optimistic outlook is better than a defeatist attitude, eh?
A perfect theory of everything may not be possible, but it is certainly the right direction

[Krsqk]

Wow, so much to respond to. Where to start:

BM: Excellent description of scientific materialism. As for the horse series, let me give you what I know about it, and then refer you to several other sources. 1) The number of ribs is inconsistent throughout the series, beginning with 18, climbing to 19, then dropping to 15 before ending up back at 18 with the modern horse, Equus. 2) No transitional teeth exist. They are all either browsing or grazing teeth. 3) The series does not exist in order in the fossil record. Frequently, earlier forms are found on top of later forms; Eohippus has even been found in the same strata as modern Equus. In fact, the only places the complete series is to be found is in museums and textbooks. 4) The first animal in the series is not even a horse, but a badger. 5) There are no transitional forms between members of the series. They are all distinct species. 6) There are no transitional forms to link Eohippus to its supposed ancestors, the condylarths. 7) The series is heavily keyed to size; but even modern horses vary in size as much as the horse series does. 8) Skeletal remains are insufficient to determine relationship. Horse and donkey remains would appear similar, but they are vastly different animals.

Here are some further sources for study:[*]Science News Letter, August 25, 1951[*]Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (1960)[*]L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma (1988)[*]Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982)[*]G.A. Kerkut, Implications of Evolution (1969)[*]Charles Deperet, Transformations of the Animal World[*]David M. Raup, in Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (1979)[*]The New Evolutionary Timetable[*]G.G. Simpson, Life of the Past (1953)[*]George G. Simpson, "The Principles of Classification and a Classification of Mammals" in Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 85:1-350[*]G.G. Simpson, Tempo and Mode in Evolution (1944)
Hope that helps.

The primary point which Krsqk is trying to show you is that the evidence does NOT support evolution, at least not gradualist evolution by random mutation.

That's exactly the point I'm trying to make. Thanks for the clarification.

Taz:

Of course you are BOTH assuming that evolution and creationism are mutually exclusive.
How about Evolved Creation. This is the theory that something (GOD?) created the initial conditions and set-up the natural laws just so that now the current conditions are as they are.

No serious evolutionist or Bible-believer buys into that, or should. The Bible specifically records a six-day creation, and its credibility is at stake. Everything else in the Bible is based on the belief that God created the world the way He recorded it.

Capt. Kwok:

Evolution occurs, but the method of evolution is just a theory. Just like gravity - it happens, but our explaination is only a theory. Last time I checked, gravity was treated like a fact too.

The difference is that gravity is constantly being observed and verified, while evolution has not been observed. It is theoretical. If you mean micro-evolution occurs, you're right; but we've never seen a species turn into another species.

The rate of radioactive decay is constant and is not affected by external conditions. While the ratio of rad. isotopes to the naturally occuring element is subject to flucuations - it is not exponential as Phoenix has already shown. It would take a *significant* change in the rate to make any dramatic change to age estimates.

I misspoke (mistyped?) in my previous post. I meant to say that if the rate of formation were decreased (by canopy, magnetic field, meteor dust, etc.), then the rate of absorption would be decreased, resulting in animals which appeared much older than they really were.

Aside, mutations aren't the single factor in evolution anyways.

If mutations aren't thought to cause evolution, then what is? From what I can tell, that's the current popular mechanism, combined with natural selection. Mutations bring about beneficial changes which allow the organism to survive and pass on its traits to its offspring. Has something new come up?

Textbooks can get dated in a hurry. Schools don't generally have the funds to get the most recent books for students.

The horse series has been in doubt since the 1950s. Embryonic recapitulation has been disproved since the late 1800s. I know it's government-funded, but how long does it take?

In re: to the E. coli. They are not necessarily the same E. coli! In fact, they are becoming more genetically diverse. Sooner or later, they will be significantly different as one will be able to readily survive harsh conditions while the other will not. However, since E. coli doesn't really reproduce sexually as most higher lifeforms, much of the other mechanisms are not really applicable and the changes less pronounced.

No one has said they're not E. coli. They're just drug-resistant E. coli. We haven't developed any new bacteria since the invention of penicillin; they've just adapted to the drug and are less affected by it. Staph is still staph, E. coli, etc. The only "harsh conditions" its been proven they can survive is the presence of specific drugs; that's hardly "natural" selection. No one knows if they're more fit to survive their natural predators, whatever they are. And why should sexual/asexual reproduction matter? If we came from something else, it had to start with a single asexual cell somewhere. The same mechanisms have to apply to both types of organisms.

Phoenix-D:

Questionable yes, unverifiable no. The more independant sources you have giving the same result, the better the result tends to be. Either the result is correct *or* there is something consistantly throwing your results.

How can these results come from accurate dating methods?[*]For years the KBS tuff, named for Kay Behrensmeyer, was dated using Potassium Argon (K-Ar) at 212-230 Million years. See Nature, April 18, 197, p. 226. Then skull #KNM-ER 1470 was found (in 1972) under the KBS tuff by Richard Leakey. It looks like modern humans but was dated at 2.9 million years old. Since a 2.9 million year old skull cannot logically be under a lava flow 212 million years old many immediately saw the dilemma. If the skull had not been found no one would have suspected the 212 million year dates as being wrong. Later, 10 different samples were taken from the KBS tuff and were dated as being .52- 2.64 Million years old. (way down from 212 million. Even the new "dates" show a 500% error!)[*]Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (122 BC) gave K-AR age of 250,000 years old. [*]Dalyrmple, G.B., 1969 40Ar/36Ar analysis of historic lava flows. Earth and Planetary Science Letters, 6-47 55.[*]Lava from the 1801 Hawaiian volcano eruption gave a K-Ar date of 1.6 Million years old. [*]Basalt from Mt. Kilauea Iki, Hawaii (AD 1959) gave K-AR age of 8,500,000 years old.[*]Basalt from Mt. Etna, Sicily (AD 1972) gave K-AR age of 350,000 years old.[*]"One part of the Vollosovitch mammoth carbon dated at 29,500 years and another part at 44,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30.[*]"One part of Dima [a baby frozen mammoth] was 40,000, another part was 26,000 and the "wood immediately around the carcass" was 9-10,000. --Troy L. Pewe, Quaternary Stratigraphic Nomenclature in Unglaciated Central Alaska, Geological Survey Professional Paper 862 (U.S. Gov. printing office, 1975) p. 30[*]"The lower leg of the Fairbanks Creek mammoth had a radiocarbon age of 15,380 RCY, while its skin and flesh were 21,300 RCY. --In the Beginning Walt Brown p. 124[*]"A geologist at the Berkeley Geochronology Center, [Carl] Swisher uses the most advanced techniques to date human fossils. Last spring he was re-evaluating Homo erectus skulls found in Java in the 1930s by testing the sediment found with them. A hominid species assumed to be an ancestor of Homo sapiens, erectus was thought to have vanished some 250,000 years ago. But even though he used two different dating methods, Swisher kept making the same startling find: the bones were 53,000 years old at most and possibly no more than 27,000 years— a stretch of time contemporaneous with modern humans." --Kaufman, Leslie, "Did a Third Human Species Live Among Us?" Newsweek (December 23, 1996), p. 52.

How about this quote: "Structure, metamorphism, sedimentary reworking, and other complications have to be considered. Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first." (O’Rourke, J. E., "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy," American Journal of Science, vol. 276 (January 1976), p. 54) What does that mean, then? That radiometric dating doesn't really matter; it's the strata that determine the age? Or if strata age and radiometric age conflict (which should never happen, if the geologic column were correct), the rock age wins?

Take two populations, seperate them for a long period of time in different enviorments and allow for that micro-evolution you mentioned. What happens?

No one knows what happens, because no one has ever observed it. Science doesn't guess or predict the future.

Check out the different varieties of dogs some time. They result from artifical selection applied by humans. Put a really big dog and a really small dog and try and breed them; what happens? Likely nothing, or the offspring dies. the only reason they can be considered the same species is because of the breeds in between.

A dog is a dog is a dog. Science still classifies them as dogs. And who's going to put the current breeds of dogs in a series? Do the small ones or the big ones come first? Or is it the middle ones? Which species is more advanced? Would these varieties exist if not for artificial selection? Are humans the new mechanism for evolution? The hundreds of varieties of dogs are just varieties, not new species. They never result in anything but a dog.

1940? Please tell me you're not going to bring up the "Darwin couldn't say how A could happen so A must not happen" point next? Science does advance.

Science has yet to do what Darwin couldn't do. No one has found a mechanism for evolution. If they have, then why are Gould and so many others going with this "hopeful monster" garbage? I don't think anyone will say they're ignorant doofuses or religious bigots.

You say that microevolution does occur. Fine, -where does the variation come from orriginally-? i.e. you have a population consisting of entirely one type of gene. In your view would microevolution ever occur?

Do you mean 500,000 blargs with a single gene, or 500,000 blargs with uniform genetic code? Either way, I would say that micro-evolution would occur, but I wouldn't predict that they turn into snorks. They'd just have more and more blargs, each with variation.
Let's throw another light on the variation/new species question. No two humans in the world are alike (besides identical multiple births). Each has variations on the same human "average." Some have dark skin, some have light skin, some are bigger, some are smaller, etc. Which ones are more advanced? Which ones are more fit to survive? Do we have any that are new species? Do we have any that are still older species? With all of the variations in the tens of billions of people from the Last two millenia, have we got anything other than humans?

I think this is more the common science textbook being badly done more than anything else. A wish to avoid causing confusion, perhaps, that snowballs into something else.

And inaccurate textbooks are excusable? Confusion about what? That this is what we think happened, (although the evidence we're giving you is dated or doubtful), and we want you to believe that this is unquestionably what happened (despite any evidence we find to the contrary), so we'll just teach you what we have to so you believe the "right" thing. And, someday, we'll find the missing link or some formula or astronomical evidence will come to light and vindicate what we're teaching you right now.

-similar topic, but if you try and de-bunk a worldview without offering an alternative, you encouter a lot of resistance.

My worldview is simple. God created the world in six days, the way the Bible records it. He made the world, He owns it, and He makes the rules. That pretty much sums it up. So there's the alternative.

[Krsqk]

My turn for questions.
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 dead 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 kindsince 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?

When, where, why, and how did:
1. Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?)
2. Single-celled animals evolve?
3. Fish change to amphibians?
4. Amphibians change to reptiles?
5. Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!)
6. How did the intermediate forms live?

When, where, why, how, and from what did:
1. Whales evolve?
2. Sea horses evolve?
3. Bats evolve?
4. Eyes evolve?
5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)?

1. 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.)?
2. The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce?
3. The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs?
4. DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts?
5. The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose?
6. The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants?
7. The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones?
8. The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?
10. 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?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?


When, where, why, and how did

1. Man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
2. How did photosynthesis evolve?
3. How did thought evolve?
4. How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
6. What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
7. Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
9. 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.

1. 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? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
3. 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?
4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
6. 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.
7. 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.)?
8. 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)?
9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? 11. 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.

Looking forward to your responses.

[dogscoff]

I'm not a scientist in any shape or form, but I have an amateur's interest I'd like to answer some (not all) of your questions. The fact that I can't answer them all doesn't mean I'm wrong - science acknowledges that we still have things to learn.

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.)?

I don't know much about Big bang theory, so I'm not going to attempt to answer these, but can you answer this: Where did God come from?

4. How did matter get so perfectly organized?

Perfectly organised? Perfect for what? Something cannot be perfect unless it has a purpose to be perfect for. I believe there is no purpose and that space is just chaotic. Matter clumps together into star systems, galaxies etc as a result of physical laws.

6. When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?

I believe labs have proven that amino acids and other complex organic molecules can be formed by non-biological processes (ie primordial soup).

7. When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

8. With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

I'm not sure that a single cell can reproduce sexually, I think that's the domain of us clever multi-cell beasts. Nitpick aside, I imagine the first whatever with that ability did the deed with another part of itself- even modern plants that are capable of sexual reproduction can self-pollinate.

9. Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince 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?)

You're right, a creature looking after number one probably would live longer than one that makes the effort to reproduce, but its ancestors aren't going to be the ones running the Earth in 600 million years, are they? Remember, celibacy is not heridtary.

10. How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)

I don't how your metaphor is relevant. The possibilities for variety within genetic code are staggering- remember, our DNA is something like 50% the same as that of a banana. Your parents combined their genetic code to create a new, potentially improved variety of themselves.

11. Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?

Not necessarily. Parallel evolution.

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?

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The theory of evolution is designed to explain just that.

I'm skipping a bunch of questions I don't know enough about. I'm curious as to why you're picking specifically on whales and sea horses. What did they ever do to you?

4. Eyes evolve?

Ah, now this one I can answer, I saw it on TV: Something about sluggy creatures with simple, light sensitive cells which allowed them to tell if it was light or dark. Gradually, these cells moved (over many generations) into recesses in the creatures form, so that by moving around it could tell where the light was coming from. The recesses became concave pits (for even better directional vision), kind of like a an empty eye-socket with a retina at the back, and eventually all the fancier features of the eye evolved after that.

5. Ears evolve?
6. Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?

The same way anything else evolves. A creature is born, by chance, with something a bit like hair on it. His brother isn't. It isn't an important difference, neither an advantage nor disadvantage in competetion for food etc, so off they both go, reproducing merrily. Dozens of generations later, some of the species has hairyish bits and some of the population doesn't. No one notices and it still doesn't seem important until the environment begins to change- it's getting colder. The population splits with the bald half finding somewhere warmer or dying off, the hairy half thriving in the cold weather. Give it a couple of million years of progression in two seperate directions and- hey presto- two seperate species.

1. The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the
...snip...system?
9. The immune system or the need for it?

Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask "how does stuff evolve?", rather than asking "how does a, b, c, d, e... evolve?" See my previous paragraph for my own, layman's understanding of evolution.

10. There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation.

Why does symbiosis defy evolution?

Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?

Because it is an explanation and because it can be proved. If evolution was as unproveable as you say, I'm sure someone (ie, someone without a bible to defend) would have noticed by now.

How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?

it doesn't matter why they started mimicking other animals. All that matters is that the ones who did mimic thrived and the ones who didn't, didn't.

When, where, why, and how did

1. Man evolve feelings?

Well, it was in a tree in what is now western Ethopia on a Tuesday afternoon... how am I supposed to knwo where and when?

Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.

I disagree completely. You ever see an elephant or a gorilla that has lost it's offspring or mate? It seems to me that that social, animal bond could easily develop into complex human empathic responses (mercy, guilt) as we becasme civilised.

5. What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?

uh..?

What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?

I would have said "that's impossible, they're extinct." If you told me today that you have one I'd say "That must be a very high pressure aquarium." Then I'd say "Did you know that 50 years ago these were thought to be extinct?" What's your point?

8. What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?

I don't understand this question. Are you talking about hydrogen being the only element being produced by the big bang and all other elements being produced from hydrogen in stars? I don't have a problem with that theory.

9. Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?

Well, so do you. I ask again, where did God come from? What raw materials did it use to fashion the universe? What was there first?

1. 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? (I.e., do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
2. Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?

In my case they are based on largely on faith, because I'm not a scientist and I don't habve the know-how or resources to run around verifying everyone else's results. As far as I have actually experienced with my own senses the international scientific community could be one crazy guy in an office producing wierd-sounding theories at random and feeding them to the likes of me.
Equally, as far as I'm concerned there might be no such place as America, because I have never been there. However, I choose to believe that there is a place called America because, well, for the same reason you (presumably) accept that there is such a place as (insert name of place you've never been).
And so yes, my answers are based on faith, but it is faith that what I have said is based on scientific, provable facts.

3. Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe?

Not in 7 days, no. As much as anything else, I can't see that a God would bother doing it that way. Seems to me a far more elegant solution would be to kick off something like the Big bang and let it all unfold...

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?

Well, quite frankly, that's your problem and not mine. If you could show me an undeniably genuine sticker on the underside of the universe with "God was here" written on it, then I would accept your viewpoint and be happy that a) eternal life is a reality after all and that b) God has a sense of humour. Until that happens, I just have to plod along with what can be proven. I have to say I would *like* to believe - it must be very comforting to believe in all that, but belief isn't something I can just switch on and off.

4. Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?

Well it all comes down to your definition of fact, doesn't it? Let me put it this way: You say evolution can't be proved, and so it can't be taught as fact. I say it can be proved, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't make you right. Your theory is certyainly not more provable than evolution, so maybe we should be teaching all these little kids about Buddhism.

5. What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?

Who cares? Just 'cause I don't like the truth, doesn't make it any less true. Like I say, it would be very nice to believe in a benevolent God and eternal life and all that jazz, but I'm not going to pick and choose my beliefs about truth according to which one is nicest.

6. 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.

I'm sure there are some, but a lot of the above sounds too much like a conspiracy theory for my taste.

-It is all they have been taught.

How widespread would religion be today if not for this one?

7. Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution

No, we should use all the indated, proven, unquestionable and conclusive ones instead, and we do.

because we don’t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?

What is this list about. AAre these items supposed to disprove evolution? I don't think they do.

8. 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)?

No. That kind of thing is for the family to teach. I don't think religion has any place in a school, except as something to be studied impartially.

9. What are you risking if you are wrong? "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."

Again, you are talking as though I can just start believing in God if you make it appealing enough. It doesn't matter how "frightening" or "risky" the truth is, it's still the truth and I can't change that. What's the point in beleiving anything else?

10. Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools?

Because a school is not a recruitment centre for your religion or any other. It should be neutral, to reflect the diverse beliefs of the children attending. Even as a kid I was an atheist but I was made to sing hymns and pray at school. Now that I am an adult, I realise how offensive that was. When i have kids I'm going to create merry hell at their school if they try anything like that. How would you feel if your kids came home from school quoting the Qu'ran and saying that Allah was the only true God? Wouldn't you be a bit pissed off?

11. 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.

That where we will have to agrre to differ. I don't think either side is likely to budge on this point.

[ December 11, 2002, 17:36: Message edited by: dogscoff ]

[Wardad]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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.)?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

IT IS A SIMULATION.
We are in a giant Optical Computer and it is all done with mirrors.
God is testing us, and he won't even show us the questions.

Mwahahahahahahahahaahahahaha!!!!!!

[Krsqk]

I don't know much about Big bang theory, so I'm not going to attempt to answer these, but can you answer this: Where did God come from?

God, by definition, is uncreated. I'm not saying that's scientific (i.e., proveable).

I believe labs have proven that amino acids and other complex organic molecules can be formed by non-biological processes (ie primordial soup).

First, it takes carefully controlled production to create only left-handed amino acids (the kind in living organisms). Equal distributions of left- and right-handed amino acids form in unconstrained production. Second, amino acids and organic molecules don't equal life, and it hasn't been shown that they will combine to form life once that's produced. Third, there's a vast difference between the conditions in a lab and in a storm-tossed primordial soup.

Perfectly organised? Perfect for what? Something cannot be perfect unless it has a purpose to be perfect for. I believe there is no purpose and that space is just chaotic. Matter clumps together into star systems, galaxies etc as a result of physical laws.

You're telling me there's no organization in nature? Wouldn't random processes result in random results? Wouldn't an explosion like the Big Bang result in an equal distribution of matter across the universe?

You're right, a creature looking after number one probably would live longer than one that makes the effort to reproduce, but its ancestors aren't going to be the ones running the Earth in 600 million years, are they? Remember, celibacy is not heridtary.

No, the point of the question is whether survival is an individual or a species-wide instinct. Do organisms try to save themselves or save their kind?

I don't how your metaphor is relevant. The possibilities for variety within genetic code are staggering- remember, our DNA is something like 50% the same as that of a banana. Your parents combined their genetic code to create a new (potentially) improved variety of themselves.

And our blood chemistry is closest to that of a butter bean. So which one is a closer relative? Which people alive are most closely related to either bananas or beans? If all organisms have similar DNA, they might be related, or they just might have been created using an efficient design.

Not necessarily. Parallel evolution.

Not necessarily? The question was could similar design mean common creator.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here. The theory of evolution is designed to explain just that.

Natural selection keeps a species around the average or norm. How 1) did so much genetic variation survive? and 2) did we evolve extra chromosomes and genes?

I'm skipping a bunch of questions I don;t knwo enough about. I'm curious as to why you're picking specifically on whales and sea horses. What did they ever do to you?

I was bitten by a sea horse when I was 3. Those animals are examples of organisms which seem contrary to their environment. What sort of conditions would make them evolve like that (i.e., air-breathing but water-dwelling)?

Wouldn't it have been easier just to ask "how does stuff evolve?", rather than asking "how does a, b, c, d, e... evolve?" See my previous paragraph for my own, layman's understanding of evolution.

Because the things in each list require each other to function--they comprise an entire system. How did vital organs develop? If you need it and don't have it, you're dead--by definition. How did creatures get along with their digestive systems before they developed a resistance to digestive juices? Or if the resistance developed first, what was the trigger for that development?

For example, take the bombardier beetle. He combines two chemicals which instantly create a steaming jet he directs at his attackers. He has a third chemical to keep them from reacting inside his body, and a fourth chemical to counteract the third and allow the reaction. Which of the four chemicals (or the outlet, for that matter) evolved first? How did he survive before the entire system was developed?

Why does symbiosis defy evolution?

They have to develop simultaneously, and even then, what would happen while they're developing? Why wouldn't the original creature develop something to fix its need instead of a secondary creature developing something to meet it?

Because it is an explanation and because it can be proved. If evolution was as unproveable as you say, I'm sure someone would have noticed by now.

They do notice it. They say things like, "We believe," "We think," "Maybe," "Our best guess is," etc. But they still teach that it's unquestionably proven.

By none of those, but by EVOLUTION, which is neither chance or design (although randomness does play a part).

Randomness and chance are flip sides of a coin. You can't separate them at will. Now you're sounding like EVOLUTION is some mysterious Force or Will or Prime Mover which directs events. Another God, maybe?

I disagree completely. You ever see an elephant or a gorilla that has lost it's offspring or mate? It seems to me that that social, animal bond could easily develop into complex human empathic responses (mercy, guilt) as we becasme civilised.

Compassion and mercy are weaknesses when the goal is survival. Why do ruthless dictators gain more power than men with scruples? Because they stop at nothing to advance over the competition. Evolution reduces life to a struggle to survive, where softness has no place with the winners.

I would have said "that's impossible, they're extinct." If you told me the same thing today that you have one I'd say "That must be a very high pressure aquarium." Then I'd say "Did you know that 50 years ago these were thought to be extinct?" What's your point?

No, 50 years ago, they were "known" to be extinct, according to any scientist you would have asked.

I don't understand this question. Are you talking about hydrogen being the only element being produced by the big bang and all other elements being the result of stellar processes? I don;t have a problem with that theory.

Any proof? Any evidence of elements naturally changing to new elements? Or is it just another unproven theory?

I ask again, where did God come from? What raw materials did it use to fashion the universe? What was there first?

Again, my worldview states a supernatural origin. Any God worth his salt would be able to create something from nothing--that's part of being God.

And so yes, my answers are based on faith, but it is faith that what I have said is based on scientific, provable facts.

And my faith is based on an omnipotent God Who recorded what He did.

Not in 7 days, no. As much as anything else, I can't see that a God would bother doing it that way. Seems to me a far more elegant solution would be to kick off something like the Big bang and let it all unfold...

And now man is the expert on how God would think? Why would He do it that way if someone might come along and say it all happened by natural processes?

Well, quite frankly, that's your problem and not mine. If you could show me an undeniably genuine sticker on the underside of the universe with "God was here" written on it, then I would accept your viewpoint and be happy that a) eternal life is a reality after all and that b) God has a sense of humour. Until that happens, I just have to plod along with what can be proven. I have to say I would *like* to believe - it must be very comforting to believe in all that, but belief isn't something I can just switch on and off.

No, belief isn't a switch, but it is a choice. Either you choose to believe in God, or you choose to believe in evolution.

Well it all comes down to your definition of fact, doesn't it?

No, there's only one definition of fact...

Let me put it this way: You say evolution can't be proved, and so it can't be taught as fact. I say it can be proved, but even if I'm wrong, that doesn't make you right. Your theory is certyainly not more provable than evolution, so maybe we should be teaching all these little kids about Buddhism.

...Which is no more provable than either of these.

How widespread would religion be today if not for this one?

Religions spread by conVersion, not just teaching. Why is Islam the fastest growing religion in the US?

What is this list about. AAre these items supposed to disprove evolution? I don't think they do

No, they're former proofs for evolution, all disproven or frauds, which still are taught in many textbooks.

How would you feel if your kids came home from school quoting the Qu'ran and saying that Allah was the only true God?

I'm not advocating teaching creation as fact, either. Let the kids see the evidence for both and then decide for themselves. That's the politically correct thing to do, isn't it?

[Krsqk]

Originally posted by geoschmo:
This is as good a time as any for the moderator to suggest a subject change. It's been an interesting and thought provoking discussion. You have all comported yourselves with a dignity and curtesy that is rare for public debates of this issue. Maybe it's a good time to put a period on the sentance.

Geo

Was composing my post while you posted this. Guess we should take this to PM or email if it continues. Back to your regularly scheduled programming.

How are the Twinkies? Whether 1 year or 10 years old, they're still great!

[ December 11, 2002, 18:21: Message edited by: Krsqk ]