Slashdot Mirror
South Korea Surrenders To Creationist Demands On Evolution Textbooks
Med-trump writes "A petition to remove references to evolution from high-school textbooks claimed victory in South Korea last month after the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology (MEST) revealed that many of the publishers would produce revised editions that exclude examples of the evolution of the horse or of avian ancestor Archaeopteryx."
There goes South Korea's lead when it comes to science education.
Why are we letting these people win over science?
"Mest" is the dutch word for "Manure".
And here I thought that religious kooks are a poorly evolved subspecies found only in North America
--Udo.
This is like a plague. Here I thought that this sort of crap only happens in the American south.
Lets just hope this decision is very quickly repealed.
Lordy! WTF South Korea?
Peace is easy to achieve, just surrender. Liberty is much harder get/keep.
Hah, I invoke Poe's Law.
Now I see... The mayans predicted this.. December 12th is the end of the world as we know it, as by that time, evolution will cease to exist as will we.....
Don't be silly. Creationists view of the world isn't relevant to an evidence based subject, i.e. science. Leave make believe to psychology and comparative religion classes.
because creationism is not based in any facts.
This is also the country that believes in death by sleeping in a room with a fan.
... but it could be worse. At least it didn't "teach the controversy" by adding in Intelligent Design [s]lies[/s]alternatives, and just removed a few examples. It doesn't seem more than this.
For now.
My face: :(
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
People familiar with evolution do not assume creationists are wrong. We know they are wrong based on observational science. Creation myth may be an interesting story to tell and an important part of our (or any other) culture, but for people to even take it seriously as fact is delusion held to the highest form of grandeur.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
40% of biology teachers agreed with the statement that “much of the scientific community doubts if evolution occurs”
In other news, much of the scientific community doubts that teacher education occurs.
Ezekiel 23:20
At least the US won't be alone in its downward spiral of idiocy.
Huh, whodathunkit - The rest of the world has religious idiots too!
That said, at least in the US, we regularly put ours back in their place - The churches, not the schools or courts. I'd suggest doing the same if you don't want the rest of the planet to view you as a nation of 3rd-world savages going around burning witches for stealing your penises and such.
Yes, I agree. We also need to be teaching alternative views on heliocentrism, whether the Earth is flat, and if molemen are real.
You can play "what if" games all day if you like. There's no evidence for any explanation besides evolution. There is no theory with anywhere near the explanatory power of evolution. Literally, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in light of evolution".
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
They may very well be right! And if you have a [i]scientific[/i] hypothesis about the formation of the world that involves intervention by deities or supernatural forces or even [i]casts serious doubt on the validity of evolution without offering an alternative...[/i] please, step this way and collect your Nobel Prize.
I'm serious. If you could provide a peer reviewed, falsifiable, scientifically valid explaination for the formation of sentient life that relies on a deity you would win every Nobel Prize in the universe. Your name would be remembered alongside Einstein, Darwin, Oppenheimer... you would be hailed as a genius.
The problem is, creationism may be right. It may be 100% true and correct. Every word, every letter of the Bible could be correct. The problem is [i]proving it[/i].
I posit that the universe was created by Twilight Sparkle from My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic. You always assume the Twilightests are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a unicorn or other means)*.
*Teaching of this philosophy is now illegal in all states of Australia after the Pinkie Pie/Twilight Sparkle Pony Cult Suicide of 2011.
Check out my sci-fi book "Lacuna" at http://goo.gl/MVxX8
Same reason we assume geocentrism to be wrong. Even though it seems like an obvious answer ("Look, the sun is going around us in the sky!"), there is simply no scientific evidence to support it's claims (and actually tons and tons of evidence disproving it).
Ask your question again, but this time insert "geocentrism" instead of "creationism"; you now know how silly you sound to biologists.
Creationism is not a scientific theory, it's rote dogma. Intelligent Design is also not a scientific theory as it posits that things that are unlikely are less probable than a magic person creating from whole cloth. They belong with other religious dogma. Neither have a hypothesis, testing protocols, and a method for modifying hypothesis based on results.
IF?!??!?
IF!!!
You are going to hell, right now!
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
the examples mentioned aren't accepted as valid science by evolutionists anymore either. Several items in the standard textbook 'horse' series are known to not be horses at all and archaeopteryx is known to be a full-fledged (pun intended) bird.
Mostly because what you would call Young Earth Creationism isn't backed by any empirical data. I suppose it could be right, if a deity decided to set it up that way, but then, it still wouldn't be science because the situation was set up to evade scientific inquiry.
We need to remember, science is a method, it's not a philosophy. It may well be that the method doesn't explain everything, or it can't explain everything, but insofar as a class is about its application and results, it should teach what has been determined by that method.
It may be better for everyone involved to realize that science doesn't disprove religion any more than religion disproves science and stop being so sensitive about it.
In South Korea, only old people know about science.
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
Heliocentrism and flat Earch are crazy, but I saw a moleman once!
It looked a bit like a regular mole, and everybody else said it was just a regular mole. But I FEEL like it was actually a baby moleman, and those people aren't going to trick me into not going with my gut. Molemen forever.
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't?
Oh, the creationists are right. The problem is figuring out which ones.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
In another words.... creationists that advocate that there's no proof for evolutionary theory are able to exclude such proof from textbooks. Is it just me who thinks this is fsck up logic?! "Hey, there's no proof"... Creationists find out there's proof, complains about being given more focus on evolution since there's proof and proof is removed from textbooks.... next it'll be: creationists exclaim (once again) "WHERE'S YOUR PROOF?!? THERE'S NONE!!!"..... Fscked up indeed.
There is a giant disconnect from the creationists. Even if we skip the entire initial creation story, which neither side can answer with absolute fact (although the science side can get REALLY damn close) , the creationists have created a definition for evolution that is not what the true concept is, and then fought against their straw man to have the real science removed from education. THIS ACTION IS AS WRONG AS ANYTHING COULD EVER BE!.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
If Creationism is correct then Science is wrong. Which is fine, I suppose... if that turns out to be true then we can stop teaching Biology at all. Just don't teach Creationism and claim that it's Science. Science requires natural, repeatable, testable hypotheses, and saying "God did it" undermines the entire premise. It's perfectly acceptable to say that evolution's "random" events are influenced by God, or that God set it all in motion according to His plan. But there's no scientific way to test that, so it belongs in theology or social studies class. Evolution as a theory does not directly address the origin of life; just the origin of the species, so really there's room for everyone to play.
E pluribus unum
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead [nerp.net]
OK, because of my sympathy for your post I did follow this "go to my web page instead" link, expecting to find something fabulous given your /. number ;-)
Indeed, the page is empty.
Now maybe THIS is the message, some kind of Zen-like?
Herve S.
This has to be a parody. No Christian could possibly be that stupid despite the stereotype many people have about Christians.
I guess that Samsung will have to rename it's S2 Evolution smartphone. I know a lot of US Koreans and some of them can out thump our best homegrown bible thumpers,
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Again, this is wrong. The "Young Universe" so-called theory can easily be tested scientifically, and every bit of data says that it's false. In fact, it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
--- Journals are boring; Go to my web page instead
Whichever side of the origins debate one subscribes to, good riddance to the horse and Archaeopteryx examples!
The typical horse progression still shown in many textbooks is oversimplified and incorrect. The "horses" shown in the progression, particularly Eohippus, really belong on "branches" of a quite complex tree. I know I've personally met creationists for whom learning about the incorrectness of that picture was the turning point in their abandonment of textbook paleobiology.
Likewise, the Archaeopteryx is often criticized as a particularly weak example even by the most dedicated evolutionists. Archaeopteryx may yet be accepted as an early member of Avialae, but there just isn't sufficient evidence of that yet.
Most creationists on this planet are Hindu or Muslim, which if you've noticed are mostly in places other than North America. Furthermore, South Korea has quite a few evangelicals (even if they are outnumbered by "none of the above" and Buddhists at the moment). Should be interesting to see how this plays out.
Ok, so now that my post was modded down to -1,with 48 replies, I'm going to make another point.
I've obviously touched a nerve with the amount and content of the replies to this post. People are passionate about what they believe, and want to make sure that there is significant discussion around this topic. Yet, the post was modded down to -1. Why? Because it challenges the status quo?
What are we so passionate about defending, yet we're trying to silence critics. If the critics are wrong, lets move their arguments to the forefront and let them stand/fall on their own merit.
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
Because it is not science. It is not testable.
It belongs in philosophy class not science.
Anyone intelligent considers competing theories side by side until one is proved. Any good theory should be able to stand on its own merit.
The fact that creationists are apparently so threatened by the theory of evolution as to conduct radical acts of censorship is a clear indicator even they secretly acknowledge that evolution theory has substance.
By their own ill-conceived actions, creationists are making it self-evident that creationism must be no more than a logically inconsistent nursery tale who's only market are those with low enough IQ to not be able to reason.
"Scientists" who believe in a young universe are only able to maintain their position through lies and bad logic. Most creationists have been deceived, so we can't call them liars, but YEC "scientists" are in a position to actually know better, and so it is impossible to avoid the conclusion that they are lying.
When we have two competing theories, we meticulously go through all of the evidence and see how each theory explains the evidence. In every case, the Talking Snake Theory of Creation either offers no explanation, or offers an explanation that is the opposite of what we find in the evidence. The Talking Snake Theory of Creation is falsifiable and in fact has already been falsified. It is only taken seriously by the deceivers and the deceived.
You don't get to demand proof in the form you want it in. There is plenty of other proof for Evolution - the LepTree project is a great example.
So, where's my latinum?
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
But this isn't a story about including creationism in the textbooks, it is about excluding evolution. So it seems that the creationists are also guilty of not wanting multiple points of view.
The big difference is that creationists will attempt to hide actual documented facts (eg. discovered fossils) that support another point of view. It is hardly suprising that, according to a survey of South Koreans, "41% said that there was insufficient scientific evidence to support (evolution)". When those people are prevented from seeing any scientific evidence, then obviously they will think that none exists. It is just a pity that those people do not subject their own religious beliefs to the same level of scepticism and demands of evidence.
How fast do you think continents move?
It took Hundred Of Millions Of Years for Rodinia to break up into the continents we have now.
Many high school teachers still teach that a scientific theory "becomes a law" after testing, when in fact theories and laws are entirely separate things. Much is wrong with our science education in this country, I'm afraid, and bronze age fairy tales are only part of the problem. :(
"...the creationists have created a definition for evolution that is not what the true concept is..."
Can you elaborate on this a little more? How is the creationist view of evolution different from the general scientific consensus?
No man is an island, But if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie them together, they make a pretty good raft.
...most creationists on this planet are Muslim or Hindu, and in case you haven't noticed, in Muslim areas, the mosque has enormous influence over not only the state, but places hard restrictions on academia in what conclusions they can and cannot reach.
Excuse me? Did you ask "What if they aren't wrong"? Seriously? OK, let me answer your questions and explain things to you.
First, that question is a fallacy known as appeal to consequence and is the basis if Pascal's Wager. Now, I ask you: What if both they and the science are wrong, specifically, they have the wrong god and the actual god prefers non-believers to those who believe in the Abrahamic god? After all, there are literally millions of gods out there. What if you are worshiping the wrong god and pissing off the god(s) you should be worshiping?
Next, let's look at the facts. There is no evidence they are right. None. Zero. Zilch. Meanwhile, the Theory of Evolution (ToE) is based on scientific evidence, which is falsifiable and repeatable and which has been repeatedly proven correct.
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that all points of view are equal. That is false. The reason the creationist point of view is not accepted in the scientific community is that it is not based on science and much of it has been debunked.
Creationism starts with an unsupported, unverifiable claim, specifically that there is a god who created everything. The closest thing they have to evidence is a book of bronze and earlier age stories which do not match observable facts. The primary argument used by creationists to support creationism are all fallacies including but not limited to appeal to authority, appeal to popularity, and argument from ignorance. The primary arguments creationists use against ToE include but are not limited to appeal to consequence, argument from incredulity, and moving the goal posts. But, they never provide any testable, falsifiable, repeatable evidence.
Creationists also lie about the scope and content of the ToE. The ToE is based on scientific evidence from biology, microbiology, genetics, archaeology, paleontology, and biochemistry. It is not based on a bunch of stories from a time when disease was thought to be caused by spirits and not microbes.
Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the universe, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of cosmology.
Creationists claim that the ToE doesn't explain the existence of life, but it doesn't try to do so. That is the domain of biochemistry.
Creationism isn't a point of view. It isn't a scientific theory. It is not a scientific hypothesis. It isn't even a conjecture. Creationism is superstition based on stories made up by ignorant nomadic tribesman to explain the existence of world and universe they didn't understand.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
They are not becoming more organized, you are seeing patterns that are not there.
Intelligent Design is a nonsense term anyway, whoever designed the human eye for instance was an idiot. Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though. If you want to debate the existence of Idiotic Design, then we can have some philosophy, but still not science.
If you have a national department of education that can set standards, then that department can be influenced and/or bought, with impact (potentially disastrous) to the entire system. Once upon a time, in the US, schools were independent neighborhood establishments. Some were crap, but the damage they did to kids was limited. A National Department of Education is like putting all your eggs in one basket, and hoping, against all historical evidence, that the basket will be safe, and/or that those in charge are wise, immune to political pressure and can be trusted.
Wrong. These ideas CAN be tested and have tested. You can recreate the beginning of the evolution in a lab, you can prove how the first amino acids form THEMSELVES (it is NOT a wonder but rather just biochemistry).
Evolution theory (despite it's name) is more than what a layman understands of the word "theory". Evolution has been proven. Fact.
Only creationist suckers are what they are : laymen and ignorants.
Scientists who believe in a young universe, ID and all that nonsense should return their PhD for a money refund of their universities. Apparently their eduction wasn't successful.
There is no such evidence. The so called theory of irreducible complexity is utter nonsense.
I can see the merit in many theories, but those have to be testable and make useful predications. ID fails that test. It is a philosophy not science.
It's perfectly fine to have a scientific opinion on evolution while believing it was created by a higher power. The trouble comes when you insist, for religious and/or political reasons, that the evidence for evolution is all wrong despite it passing rigorous testing for over a hundred years.
In other words, "lying for Christ" is not science.
Dammit. I moved to S. Korea because it had far less of the ignorant, science deniers than in America. Now the zombies are here, too.
I thought everyone understood that fossils, red shifted starlight, continental drift, and DNA markers were all just God’s practical jokes.
It's not so much that they are wrong but that they are thrusting religion into science. They do under the guise that Intelligent Design is science (when it isn't) or try to distort evolution as some sort of vague guessing by scientists not supported by any evidence.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Well of course evolution happens, it's easily observable. And yes, people who refuse to accept this and believe God created the everything simultaneously five thousand years ago are delusional.
However, in the ultimate sense (and I mean really ultimate, as in Budha's "All is illusion") the creationists might have a kernel of truth. What happened before the Big Bang? Modern belief is "nothing" or "no one can know". But according to quantum physics, matter does not exist unless it has been observed... it's all probability waves until observation takes place. If you extend this further, you could argue that before the beginning of the universe, there had to have been an observer who observed the big bang.
You are a blind man asking to be able to see. And until you open your eyes you will never see. Therefore you will never understand. Further discussion with you is useless because you will always find a way to believe your superstition above actual reproducible verifiable facts. Why you go to the hospital when you are bleeding to death instead of staying at the scene of the car accident, praying, and accepting the fate chosen for you for your god, however, remains a mystery.
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
From the wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fan_death): "Fan death is a widely held belief in South Korea that an electric fan left running overnight in a closed room can cause the death of those inside". This was even reported by the Korea Consumer Protection Board (KCPB), a South Korean government-funded public agency, though outside South Korea it is generally considered a classic case of mass hysteria.
I think a certain country could use a more rigorous scientific curriculum.
If he hadn't said "Watch how mockers mock this post." you'd be right. If he had just left that out then it would have been perfect.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
I'm pretty sure you're trolling, but I'll bite anyhow.
Science and Faith are different things, no? They don't attempt to answer the same questions, by and large. And there are plenty who believe the "theories" (using this term loosely) proposed by each are not mutually exclusive. There are questions which are the domain of science: how much thrust is needed to lift X tons into a particular orbit? There are questions which are the domain of faith: how can I be a better person? One lends itself to experimentation rather readily, the other (generally speaking) does not.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Science is not dogma. The greater scientific community is happy to work on multiple, competing testable hypotheses. They don't all have to agree. If we find that a hypothesis is proved false, we take note of what we've learned and move on.
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
Didn't you just describe Christian Communism?
okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
A very eloquent illustration of why cognitive limitations coupled with self-enforced ignorance precludes the engagement of any sort of meaningful debate with the proponents of Creationism both individually and as a group. Well played sir, very well played.
Science may disprove certain aspects of certain religions. Religion, being based on faith and not observation, cannot disprove science.
Ok, so like, evolution is proven technology. So, given that the IDer's say that the hand of god is guiding things, and that hand is working via random mutation, QED, the IDer's god is Eris. fnord.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Not only has evolution been proved, but it's been observed. See superbacterica.
A trail of bones millions of years long cant be right.
Our invisible sky being that grants wishes is the way.
Modern man wont last as long as any of the others, I have no doubt about that.
>say from fish to frog to lizard
A fish doesn't not develop into a frog. People requesting such proves haven't even read the evolution theory.
Fishes, frogs,etc have a common ancestor (a single cell thing 3 billions years ago.), but some ages ago began to develop independently.
Imagine a tree. That is how it works. The roots are single cell life forms. The leaves on the different branches are the current animals and plants.
>as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Wrong. The yearly movement and destruction of old continental mass is about 1-10 cm a year.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Snider-Pellegrini_Wegener_fossil_map.svg
Are you trolling today?
Even though I have some doubts about the "not a troll post", I will provide some answers to your question.
Creationism basically says the world was created by God because we believe that way and any evidence proofing us wrong must not be shown because we find it offensive.
Evolution basically says the world evolved through natural selection and we can proof it. Just look at this line species over the course of time.
In science it is OK to have different point of view, but once your point is proven to be wrong, you are expected to change (or at least adapt) it. Otherwise you are no longer participating in a scientific discussion. Earth is no longer the center of the universe, it is not flat, there are more than 4 elements, heavier than air flight is possible and so on. Once an idea is disproved you stop force feeding it to children no matter how comforting it was.
Also creationism is (by the very definition) not science and should not be called such. It is a religious standpoint found mostly in some more fundamental flavors of american Christianity. If not even the rather conservative catholic church is on your side and openly rejects intelligent design it might be the time to rethink what one calls "science"
explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Someone doesn't understand geology very well, eh?
Here's a hint:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geology_of_the_Rocky_Mountains
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
This is the same country that believes in fan death, btw. That they believe in an anachronistic paternalistic jewish death cult is hardly a stretch I guess.
Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
Ok, so now that my post was modded down to -1,with 48 replies, I'm going to make another point.
I've obviously touched a nerve with the amount and content of the replies to this post. People are passionate about what they believe, and want to make sure that there is significant discussion around this topic. Yet, the post was modded down to -1. Why? Because it challenges the status quo?
What are we so passionate about defending, yet we're trying to silence critics. If the critics are wrong, lets move their arguments to the forefront and let them stand/fall on their own merit.
I believe you've been down-modded because others (like me) probably assumed you were trolling. If you say you were not trolling, fine, I accept that. It seems to me that your argument has indeed fallen "on its own merit".
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'” -- Arthur C. Clarke
I only post comments when someone on the internet is wrong.
South Korea has a fairly strong Christian population. So I'm inclined to believe that there's a concerted global effort amongst certain Christian denominations. This can't be mere coincidence. My suspicion is that these groups are seeing religion's decreasing importance in modern society and these are last ditch efforts to keep themselves relevant.
Science, as always, is perceived as the threat so that's where the effort goes. They keep pushing religious beliefs to the forefront by suggesting that religious beliefs are as legitimate as scientific theory. It's the perpetuation of religion through ignorance.
Arguably there is a place in society for religion. And you might even be able to make a strong case for theology studies. But religion has no place in science. Not that they are mutually exclusive; you can be a scientist and religious. However, science is founded on principles other than faith.
I find this incredibly concerning, and yet another reason to take issue with organized religion. I will remind everyone, however, that the Vatican has accepted evolution as fully compatible with the Bible. So whoever is doing this, it's unlikely to be them. And anyway they've got more important things to worry about.
I feel as though this topic is not Slashdot worthy... its an old debate and very tired. I don't read slashdot to read junk like this.
How smart people can not understand the failed logic in dis-organized things becoming more organized - without outside influence - is beyond me. I have never in my life observed anything exhibiting this behavior. Things we (ID) organize always become dis-organized, not the other way around.
So, you'd never observed water freezing and become ice crystals...?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Yes, of course, no evidence can ever disprove ID, because you can always say "Well God did it!"
It's the same principle behind people who are that we can never change the climate because the climate changes naturally all the time. Instead of "Well God did it!" the mantra is "Well Nature did it!" and no evidence can ever disprove the claim because whatever happens with the climate you can always shout "Well Nature did it!"
Claims that cannot be disproven are not science, although when you point this out to people making these types of arguments, they say, "But it is you making claims that cannot be disproven, not me!". These people are hopeless victims of cognitive dissonance.
No assumptions are made. We know for sure that it's bullshit pseudoscience.
All the anti-mystics could be wrong, Quetzalcoatl or Odin or Jehova or FSM could come down from the heavens and reveal himself, saying, "Most of you were all atheists to my particular religion but ha ha, turns out I was the right guess," and then whichever deity it is could explain how they created the world and initially seeded life, but then that deity would follow up with, "but how your creationists ever happened to randomly guess The Truth, I have no idea, for their ramblings and justifications were all total bullshit and I never ever revealed any of My Truth to them, nor did any of them actually look at what I did reveal, nor did they use coherent arguments for how what they observed even remotely suggested what they guessed had happened. They were incredibly lucky liars."
That's how bullshit creationism is. It could be correct, and it would still not be science.
And multiple points of view are totally fine, even if they do include "higher powers" but if you throw away all of
then it's not science. Evolution went through all of that. Creationism hasn't gone through any of it.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Even if there are cellular processes that could not have evolved into existence (which I doubt, and saying "we don't know how it happened isn't going to be enough to convince me), that wouldn't disprove evolution. It would perhaps disprove abiogenesis, which is a different though related field regarding the origins of life as opposed to evolution which discusses the diversity of life. Even if we found an ancient satellite orbiting the moon containing video of aliens landing on primordial earth, coding up some germs in a DNA synthesizer and letting them loose on the sterile rock it still wouldn't disprove evolution. Evolution is about what comes afterwards, it's about how you go from microscopic, undifferentiated single cell organisms to the staggering complexity that is life on earth.
. There is evidence that some of the biological machines that exist at a celluar level could not have evolved.
There is evidence that some of the mechanisms could not have evolved according to the currently proposed theories. There is no evidence that says it could not have evolved by any mechanism.
And even if there was, that still doesn't mean they were created. It's entirely possible that the right combination of events caused such mechanism to fall into place fully formed. That's a long stretch, but not nearly so far as saying that Sky Daddy waved his Magical Penis and it just sprang into existence from nothing.
Observational science doesn't disprove ideas about origins. Those ideas can't be tested scientifically. All that can be done really is to interpret the data in the context of your preferred presuppositional research framework. That's what materialistic scientists do... that's what scientists who believe in a young universe do.
Again, this is wrong. The "Young Universe" so-called theory can easily be tested scientifically, and every bit of data says that it's false. In fact, it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
Not when the answer you get is "that is how everything is created, to give you the illusion that evolution took/is taking place."
When a person looks at a problem with a predetermined solution, evidences can simply be twisted to fit that solution.
Once you believe that there is an omnipotent being who creates everything, it's not a stretch to makes everything around you fit into his/her/its whims.
Actually, it can't be tested scientifically, unless you can find a way to prove the non-existence of an omnipotent being who doesn't want people to be able to prove his existence.
Watch how South Korea's morality and productivity go up...
The BBC had an interesting show: Civilization, is the West History?
One of the issue they explored was the Protestant work ethic and productivity. They explored the decline of religion in the West and the rise of Christianity in the East and the relative productivity. I know from the Korean neighborhoods in Dallas, they seem to have as many Christian churches (with signs in Hangul) as anyone else. If you've ever seen the endless sea of churches in Dallas, you know that says something.
Ah, yes moving the goalpost and god of the gaps.
There are hundreds of examples of macro evolution.
http://evolutionlist.blogspot.com/2009/02/macroevolution-examples-and-evidence.html
http://www.windows2universe.org/headline_universe/olpa/whales_20dec07.html
And so on.
" when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time."
also, stupid.
I'm not sure where you are getting your science information, but I'm pretty sure it's from no where.
What a few people in the ID world have done is conflate several issues:
Origins and Evolution.
Evolution and speciation.
God v. Science.
They have spread the idea that understanding evolution is the same as not believing in God.
This is false. Evolution is a fact.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Silence is not the answer, says Dayk Jang. He is now organizing a group of experts, including evolutionary scientists and theologians who believe in evolution
We're never going to get anywhere if even an article that supports science uses this kind of bigoted language. Do scientists "believe in" gravity? Do scientists "believe in" relativity?
It really is that they're wrong. Religious Faith is an absurd belief in things that we know are false.
I guess berashith (222128) refers to the notion creationists have that evolution means that things such as crocoducks could occur. They think that a duck egg hatches and out comes a crocoduck through random mutations. That's the kind of wrong idea of evolution they have.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Your talking about people whose response to that would be, god did it. Making logical or coherent sense isn't even a factor here.
This is, and always has been, about controlling people and controlling key founding ideas that influence people.
Now, at this point, one option is to posit a designer-designer. This, however, leads to an infinite regress -- "How did the designer-designer arise? How did the designer-designer-designer arise?" etc.
Another option is to give up trying to answer the question: "We don't know. The designer is ineffable and beyond understanding" or "The designer is pre-existing; it was never created, but has always been." While this is an answer it's not a scientific answer without solid proof that the designer exists and is as described; without that proof, you've moved into the realms of faith, religion, and mysticism.
So, if you want to answer the original question in a scientific manner, you have to come up with some means by which complex systems could arise from only simpler systems. Evolution through natural selection is the best answer that has been found so far.
okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
The typical response of a creationist is to demand extraordinary levels of evidence especially when challenged about their lack of evidence. Anthropogically we know where different peoples lived based on artifacts. We can document generally where the Hebrews lived in ancient Egypt based on buried buildings, pottery etc. But to use your level of proof, I could demand the names and addresses of every single Jew complete with family history and skeletal remains or I contend that the Bible is lying that Jews lived in ancient Egypt.
Second of all, the fossil record has many, many specimens that support macro evolution. There are gaps but the general premise is sound. I suspect that you have never actually researched this.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
This statement shows a complete ignorance of geology and plate tectonics that I don't know where to begin. First of all, every point on the Earth does not go under the same geologic process. A point under a mile of ocean does not experience the same geologic forces as under a mile of glacier or a point in a desert. Second tectonic forces vary like subduction forces different points under different layers or pushes a point to be a mountain.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Creationist have no evidence.
That';s why. All evidence points to and indicates evolution.
" And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community"
I'm not sure what you mean. Creationist isn't a scientific idea. I'ts made up.
If they aren't wrong, then they would have evidence. There is no scientific debate about whether or not it's true.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Because one gets to the point where re-discussing something which has already been settled over and over and over and over again, with the folks still believing in the losing proposition, gets really tedious and frustrating. The evidence is all right there for any rational person to see, and the ID response boils down to, "no it's not," like a petulant child. There is no more "debate" on this, and more than there is any more serious debate on helio- versus geocentrism, or whether electromagnetic energy must propagate through "luminiferous aether."
I don't understand why creationist must attack scientific facts. See I believe God created everything, I don't believe in a young earth. I believe that God created everything and set up the scientific principals that guide our lives (like Physics) so that we may understand his creation. If things didn't make sense and line up with science, I think this would cause more chaos then anything.
My pastor just preached on Genesis and I think made a good point (I was ready to walk out TBH is he was going to talk about young earth and stuff like that), he didn't protray Genesis 1 as a How/When but more of a Who/Why. Why we were created and who did it.
Also I think many people need to realize we are interpretting a book from an ancient language with only about what 1000 words (ancient hebrew) in it, to languages like English with Millions. God is about Faith. There is not enough evidence to prove nor disprove the existence of God. But things in my life and in nature make me have faith. Also, the probabilities of having all of this created by chance to be ridiculously small (IIRC I think throwing 50 yatzee's in a row has a higher probability happening than our earth being able to substain the life it has on it, and the 50 yatzee's in a row's probability is what most people would classify next to impossible, also I think if you take like 1million planets with 1million people each trying to throw 50 yatzee's in a row it's still in the probability most would consider next to impossible, anyways I forget the Math, and TBH doesn't matter,Faith is Faith) which tips me more towards God then away from Him. But that's just me.
I get why people attack Christians/Creationalist. Many are bigots, don't listen, do what I say not what I do, ignore evidence, refuse to listen to anything but agree'ing vewpoints, etc etc etc. But I'm not sure I would call many of them Christians to begin with. If more people who claimed to be Christian followed the 2 greatest commandments (first Love God with everything, 2nd Love neighbor as thyself) we might have a better reputation in the world.
Anyways, just my 2 cents.
okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
You don't need that. Just look at antibiotic resistance. This is active evolution process you can observe whenever you want.
BTW, continents do not "worn down". Certain places grow, some would "wear". There are places on Earth that have not changed in millions of years.
I'll just add that the creation story --and many others-- in their holy book seems to be heavily inspired in earlier creation stories: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panbabylonism . Marduk came earlier than Yahweh.
2019 is going to be the year of Linux on the desktop.
Or more likely, they have discovered the tax advantages being a church provides.
because creationism is not based in any facts.
Your statement is not true. Creationism is based on specific facts, just like the theory of evolution. Some facts may be in dispute, but it is not fair to say there is no factual basis for Creationism because there is factual evidence for both views. So the problem is not that creationism or evolution lacks a factual basis (they both have supporting facts) but that one theory or the other may have difficulty with specific facts. Both perspectives have difficulties explaining some things and tend to discount the importance of such difficulties on their arguments. Saying: "your argument ignores the facts!" is NOT a helpful statement and it is NOT true in this case.
The problem that evolutionists have with creationism is about how specific observations (facts) are explained. That does not mean creationism is not based on facts only that the evolutionist chooses to use facts differently. Both sides need to step back from the logical extremes here and be honest about their respective arguments and stop these "Your position is not based on facts" argument. Useful discussions about facts will do more to expose the truth than making senseless pronouncements about the opposing view which are not true.
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction (where it takes TWO previously asexual reproducers to appear in the same place at the same time ready to reproduce sexually) evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened? I'd like to understand how that's possible.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
"okay if the Proof of Evolution is so solid then show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard)."
This is a typical misunderstanding of evolution. A chicken doesn't evolve into a penguin, both decent from a common ancestor possibly something like Archeopteryx.
But if you want to see macro evolution you should look at the first fossils of land dwelling animals, there is a beautiful row of fossils.
Maybe there is an advantage to human eyes having the blood supply in front of the receptors (even if that does create a blind spot). That filters out excess heat from desert terrain. Best of all would be to have sensitivity to polarized light like locusts and other fish, as well as sensors for UV light like some mammals and bees (though they don't get to live as long as us).
The Moths that PROVE evolution! You know, the ones the "scientists" stuck to dead ones to black trees, because it turns out they only come out at night anyways, .... errr, yea, science never lies ... it, um, it was the photographer's idea....
We don't "assume" they're wrong. We know. For lots of reasons. I'm not a biologist or paleontologist, but I've read a fair amount about the topics and I've seen good evidence for evolution there. One of the best is also one that's fairly easy to check if you start looking into things. It's the "twin nested hierarchies". Books used to be copied by scribes, and (despite a lot of care) sometimes typos would be introduced. Later scribes, making copies of copies, would introduce other typos. It's possible to look at the existing copies and put them into a 'family tree'. "These copies have this typo, but not that one; this other group has yet another typo, though three of them have a newer typo as well, not seen elsewhere..." This is not controversial at all when dealing with books, including the Bible. Now, this process of copy-with-modification naturally produces 'family trees', nested groups. When we look at life, we find such nested groups. No lizards with fur or nipples, no mammals with feathers, etc. Living things (at least, multicellular ones, see below) fit into a grouped hierarchy. This has been solidly recognized for over a thousand years, and systematized for centuries. It was one of the clues that led Darwin to propose evolution. (Little-known fact: Linnaeus, who invented the "kingdom, phyla, genus, species, etc." classification scheme for living things, tried to do the same thing for minerals. But minerals don't form from copy-with-modification, and a 'nested hierarchy' just didn't work and never caught on.) Today, more than a century later, we find another tree, one Darwin never suspected - that of DNA. This really is a 'text' being copied with rare typos. And, as expected, it also forms a family tree, a nested hierarchy. And, with very very few surprises, it's the same tree that was derived from looking at physical traits. It didn't have to be that way. Even very critical genes for life - like that of cytochrome C - have a few neutral variations, minor mutations that don't affect its function. (Genetic sequences for cytochrome C differ by up to 60% across species.) Wheat engineered to use the mouse form of cytochrome C grows just fine. But we find a tree of mutations that fits evolution precisely, instead of some other tree. (Imagine if a tree derived from bookbinding technology - "this guy used this kind of glue, but this other bookbinder used a different glue..." - conflicted with a tree that was derived from typos in the text of the books. We'd know at least one tree and maybe both were wrong.) The details of these trees are very specific and very, very numerous. There are billions of quadrillions of possible trees... and yet the two that we see (DNA and morphology) happen to very precisely match. This is either a staggering coincidence, or a Creator deliberately arranged it in a misleading manner, or... universal common ancestry is actually true. (Single-celled organisms are much more 'promiscuous' in their reproduction and spread genes willy-nilly without respect for straightforward inheritance. With single-celled creatures, it looks more like a 'web' of life than a 'tree'. But even if the tree of life has tangled roots, it's still very definitely a tree when it comes to multicellular life.)
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though
Surely you were thinking of octopuses. Nautilus have a very simple pin-hole type eye. Octopuses on the other hand have complex eyes very much like ours, but better: they don't have a blind spot because nerve fibers are behind the retina. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye
I have never in my life observed a solution containing randomly-moving molecules of salt evaporate to leave behind organized, geometric crystals. Oh, wait, I have. But I refuse to believe that it can happen without magic. Therefore, Jebus.
And angels too. They're so pretty!
What I fail to understand is why evolution is constantly misunderstood as a theory that explains the origin of life or the universe. Evolution attempts to explain the origin of species / speciation and nothing more. In the actual context there is a lot less opposition.
There are no scientists who believe in a young universe. There haven't been any in a long time, over a century. You have obviously been listening to con-men and grifters.
If you want to believe that the universe was created, go ahead. I certainly know scientists who do. (That could be at the big bang, or even before it, in the multiverse theories.) In that case, your statement about origins is valid.
But, evolution is not about origins. It is about the middle past, or even the recent past, of the story of the universe, i.e., about events that happened long (billions of years) after the origin. It (and the panoply of evidence from astronomy, physics and geology that also describe the size and age of our universe) are based on facts, which can be, have been and are being tested scientifically.
And, as a very wise man (Daniel Patrick Moynihan) once said, "Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts."
No they don't. And we know they don't really believe what they say because they don't put their money where their mouths are.
Finding oil is a very important and high-stakes issue for oil companies. Literally trillions of dollars are riding on it. Exxon's exploration budget alone is around $20 billion per year. When the chips are down and they need to find the most likely spots to drill - what kind of geology do they use? Flood geology, or mainstream? Which one actually delivers the goods?
Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth? If so, is there a way to predict where it might be found? Or perhaps it really did form from plankton (with a few plants and dinosaurs), but about 10,000 times faster than any chemist believes it could in those conditions? Any way you look at it, a young Earth and a Flood would imply some very interesting scientific questions to ask, some interesting (and potentially extremely valuable) research programs to start. How come nobody's actually, seriously pursuing such research programs?
Why don't creationists put together an investment fund, where people pay in and the stake is used as venture capital for things like oil and mineral rights? If "Flood geology" is really a better theory, then it should make better predictions about where raw materials are than standard geology does. The profits from such a venture could pay for a lot of evangelism. Why isn't anyone doing this?
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
+1 :)
The problems occur when various forms of creationism are given time in a science curriculum, and when evolution is subject to special treatment i.e. specially identified as a "theory".
These views are NOT science and have no place in a science curriculum.
Many religious organizations have flat come out and recognized the correct treatment - that is that evolution is a hypothesis that is backed by so much evidence that it is very unlikely to be untrue.
No, science makes no stand on whether religious beliefs are right or wrong. They could be right. Science does say that without a standard of evidence, creationism and all the variations are not science.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
But they do that by moving to a lower energy state. The energy is dissipated and so entropy is increased and the apparent naturally occurring organization is only temporary. Given the correct condition the ice will lose its apparent organized state and return to a liquid or a gas. It doesn't need to warm up to return to a gas, just conditions of low temperature and low atmospheric humidity will allow it to sublimate directly into a gas, again increasing the disorder and increasing entropy.
Any naturally occurring seemingly self organizing behaviour is only temporary. Entropy will always take over and the order will fall back into disorder.
We know they are wrong based on observational science.
Yet their remains persistent and valid questions posed by folks that you "know" are wrong that cannot be answered. On what basis do you conclude that they are "wrong based on observational science"? What observations do they ignore or use incorrectly?
Even more to the point, which points of your view do you find most difficult to defend or have you not ever thought about that? I'll wager you have not engaged in a thoughtful and honest investigation about the creationists position and the questions they raise about your position. If you had, you'd not be so quick to dismiss them as outright wrong.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Seriously... creationism is not science at all. It is christianity, barely disguised. And, to science, Yahweh is no better than Zeus, Odin, Ishvara, Tupã, or any other god that any man has ever created.
Circumcision is child abuse.
It's fine to have multiple points of view.
What ISN'T fine is to teach creationism as an alternative to evolution in a science curriculum. Creationism is NOT science, it is a religious belief. If you have a comparative religion course, teach creationism there, along with all the other creation myths. this will give students the proper perspective.
What is ALSO not fine is to single out evolution for special treatment in a science curriculum. Evolution is just as well established as many things taught in a typical science curriculum.
Seeing as how none of the clergymen I've seen in my neck of the woods are driving a car that cost less than $50,000, I'd say this is the more likely explanation.
I know, I know...they need that Cadillac to better spread God's Message.
Intelligent Design is a nonsense term anyway, whoever designed the human eye for instance was an idiot. Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though. If you want to debate the existence of Idiotic Design, then we can have some philosophy, but still not science.
The eye is badly designed, but the whole giving birth thing is a disaster. What kind of intelligent designer would have the baby come out through the pelvis?
it is for that reason it should not even be called a theory since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up.
By your reasoning, the abscence of God is "not even a theory". I gather from your tone that by "not even a theory", you implicitly mean something ranking between "pure fantasy" and "theory", as opposed to between "theory" and "fact".
On the scale from fantasy to fact, where theory ranks somewhere around the middle, "There is a God" and "There is no God" ranks right next to each other.
Just a small correction:
It may be 100% true and correct. Every word, every letter of the Bible could be correct.
Nopz, it can't, because it is full of contradictions. Unless you put logic aside it can't be proven 100% correct even if god itself showed evidence.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
Technically, it's not that we know they're wrong, but that evolution is supported by far more repeatable/verifiable evidence than creationism. It is possible that something could come along and prove a divine creator without a doubt, but it seems unlikely based on the evidence presently available. This may seem pedantic, but it's important to remember that the pervading theories are what have the most support via evidence, and that may change with the addition of new evidence. So, while one should not support the view with less proof, it does not mean we have undeniable proof that the viewpoint is wrong.
"Our goal each year should be to increase the number of goals we set for ourselves!"
well, the question of "how could we come from monkeys?" skips the idea of a common ancestor by suggesting that evolution is proposing a graduation from one species to the next. There isnt a linear progression through the ranks of current animals. The entire concept of beneficial mutation is just ignored, along with the idea that scarcity forces a fight for survival and advantages through genetics will propagate onward. Nope, we dont discuss those parts of evolution, we just say people were never monkeys.
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
There are no creationist facts. Name one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
With facts on one side (science) and no facts on the other side (creationism), how do you expect to make a comparison?
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
"And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction (where it takes TWO previously asexual reproducers to appear in the same place at the same time ready to reproduce sexually) evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened? I'd like to understand how that's possible."
It's called a renfest.
(this is way too funny - the captcha is "puberty")
When they start coming up with some fucking science, sure.
I just see this as further proof that religion is dangerous and damaging to society, and should be banned outright in all forms, everywhere. If you ban every religion equally, then you can't claim inequality.
Honestly, as much of a dick as it may make me, I look down on people who believe in that nonsense. Use common sense and scientific evidence to form your opinions, and you will quickly see that religion is complete bullshit.
If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
Would you prefer to be a Nautilus then? Are you not satisfied with having a balance of complexity, functionality, and failure that mandates an energy consumption level suitable for your physical build? If you are unsatisfied with your current state of existence, then change it. Otherwise, such senseless condescension will only lead to continued failure and a distinct absence of results.
Between AD 800 to 100 (300 year period) the intellectual center of the world was Baghdad. Everyone was exchanging ideas (Everyone). Algebra, algorithm all traceable to that period. Than comes Hamid al-Ghazali whom states that mathematics is the work of the devil. Well, we all know what happened. The entire populace went stupid!
Watch video from: Neil deGrasse Tyson, an American astrophysicist and Director of the Hayden Planetarium
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oxTMUTOz0w&list=FLJIE2AVrCGEtpegVJO825cw&index=6&feature=plpp_video
There's no such thing as "macro evolution". "Macro evolution" is a buzzword that's used by creationists who, when given examples of evolution that have been observed, say "that doesn't count because it's not macro evolution". Since the only people determining whether something is macro evolution are the creationists, they can use that excuse to explain away every example.
Theory of evolution does not talk about how life originated. It only talks about how it diversified. Origin of life has a few hypotheses, like abiogenisis, panspermia etc. Even in abiogenesis, there are things like clay based, auto catalysts, or RNA world before DNA world etc. But they have not progressed to the level to be called theory yet. As far as evolution is concerned, diversification as explained by it using natural selection and imperfect replication is proved beyond doubt.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
But according to quantum physics, matter does not exist unless it has been observed... it's all probability waves until observation takes place. If you extend this further, you could argue that before the beginning of the universe, there had to have been an observer who observed the big bang.
Except that quantum mechanics states no such thing. The term "to observe" in this context means "to interact with" and refers to the collapse of a wavefunction when two particles interact. There is no need for an external observer in this process. In addition, recent interpretations of quantum mechanics completely drop the concept of wavefunction collapse and state that everything can be in a superposition. Schrödinger's cat is actually a thought experiment that criticises wavefunction collapse and suggests superpositions can carry on to macroscopic scale.
As some one who went to Catholic schools for 9 years, I look at science much I as I look at chess. When playing chess, I obeye the rules, and I can grow by working on skills to think ahead and trying to predict how likely an opponent is to make a move. THey may be arbitrary (why can't a knight move in a straight line?), but they are the constraints of the game.
Similarly, when I do science, I "limit" myself to the constraints of science. Imagine and be creative for your hypothesis, but ultimately it comes to what we can test and the results of those tests. If science could prove there was no god, then in the context of science that is what I would use.
As for religion, if there is a God, wouldn't you agree that if he really created everything, he could falsify evidence? But if he could do all that, why would he create a false record, other than its part of the arbitrary rules he setup when creating the universe. Look at how far exploring those rules has taken us, why wouldn't we try to go further? At the same time, I beileve, and I honestly doubt anything could shake that beleif and that's part of the beauty of religion. Now if only I were better at practicing Christianity, especially the golden rule.
Evolution is just as well established as many things taught in a typical science curriculum.
More. Evolution is much more established than many things taught in a typical science curriculum. The amount of scrutiny, research, predictions, and applications that have been applied to evolution dwarfs that of any other popular science theory.
"since theories are supposed to have the benefit of empirical data to back them up" Not necessarily. String theory is a case in point. It has no data to back it up (to my knowledge, anyhow). Yet we persist in developing it. Why? We do so because it seems to hold great promise in explanatory value. Why do we not treat creationism similarly? Because it seems to hold no promise in explanatory value. And many of its tenets are demonstrably false. I don't believe string theory has been disproven in any way. But periodically, variants of it are are discarded because of some fact just learned. Those facts tend not to disprove a variant, just make it unlikely to be correct because what would follow seems to be very odd. We don't treat creationism at this level because creationism does not admit any variants, unless you count other creationism myths (the world is a lotus flower growing out of some god's navel).
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction...
I know we're all slashtards here, but still. A car analogy if you will:
Say you want to make a car. It can be simply an engine with wheels right? Then, you need some more fine speed control so you add a transmission. Oh, and you'd like to steer a bit better so instead of a lever connected directly to the wheels you come up with a gearing system. Ahh, need to stay out of the rain and such, so let's add a roof. Oh, want to stop? Brakes are a good thing. Let's develop those too. Hmm, seems hitting objects at high speed are detrimental to the people inside the car. Let's add seat belts too. Oh, want to get out? Let's add doors! It goes on and on...
Just taking individual parts of a car and saying "None of the systems can exist without the others so they must have been `designed` at the same time to work together" is just bullshit.
"Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
The only way America will be able to compete is if we dumb the other countries down to our level.
No, I would prefer to have eyes without a blind spot though.
There are many other factors that prove if there was a designer he was a total idiot.
There is no such advantage, it just comes from our mammal ancestors they all have these mistake eyes.
South Koreans observe evolution in action every single day. Just google "Observed Examples of Speciation in Starcraft"
Correct sir, I mixed them up. There is another bad design, not having a memory system that would check for these kinds of errors.
biggest argument against ID: no 'intelligent' designer would locate the amusement park right next to the waste disposal plant.
(and my work here is now done!)
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
I "assume" that creationists are wrong ? "ASSUME ?"
You mean the same way I assume that all the heavy elements of the universe were created in supernovae ? Well no good sir I'm sorry, I have proof for that, as in I told you something amazingly beautiful and incredibly shocking, you were confused and didn't believe me so I demonstrated it to you and in the end you were convinced.
Creationism is about saying something crazy and then burning all the books that try to disprove it.
I mean for christ's sake has anyone here at least heard of Farenheit 451 ? When you're reduced to censorship or scientific theories in classroom books it generally means that you're on the loosing side of the argument.
You know like when the bully kicks the smartass ? or when China censor 'Tienanmen' on their internet ? because in case you were wondering it's NOT because they are so proud of it they want to keep it for themselves...
Creationism is based on specific facts,
"My holy book says so" is not fact-based reasoning.
evolved in multiple species using multiple methods happened? ... I'd like to understand how that's possible.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+sexual+reproduction , Wikipedia: "Sexual reproduction first appeared by 1200 million years ago in the Proterozoic Eon. All sexually reproducing organisms derive from a common ancestor which was a single celled eukaryotic species"
Riddle me this: there are 100,000 known fragments of viruses in the human genome, making up over 8% of our DNA. Virus copies are also found in chimp DNA. Why would a creator insert broken copies of viral DNA into his creations? I've never heard a good creationist explanation for that.
This level of self-confidence in scientists humors me so. Such pride, to assume that their limited human brain with it's capability for frequent and unpredictable error is the source of perfect truth(is not every human flawed?). It's foolish to think that our conclusions are flawless and equivalent to a law. How often have integral theories been proven wrong or incorrect? We will never reach a final conclusion. Who are you to say that your opinion is the only correct one? Who are you to say that your conclusions are the only possible set of results? Great men have fallen prey to pride and vanity. Don't let it cloud your judgement.
So you believe that you deserve perfection then? You desire a world of perfect beings? How boring.
The Nautilus has terrible eyesight though. I think you mean a different sea creature, but I don't know which one.
There is no before the big bang.
To have before you need to have a passing of time, and our way of understanding the passing of time or the arrow of time is through the increase of entropy, which quantifies the irreversibility of nature. Before the big bang, everything all the matter is in a infinitely small volume, where entropy is 0 and cannot increase. (everything is "ordered")
I suggest you watch these 2 videos : very accessible and fascinating.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLACGFhDOp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQSoaiubuA0&feature=relmfu
This is just the god of the gaps argument in disguise. How come quantum mechanics cannot explain gravitation? Because G-d is moving things behind the scenes. And if quantum mechanics is ever fused with a gravitational theory, you'd find something else it doesn't explain, such as love, and then claim G-d must be the one to fill in the gap.
Are there gaps in the fossil record? Of course, but we find new fossils all the time. Years ago, no one knew where birds came from. So G-d had to do it. But then we started finding fossils of dinosaurs with feathers. In fact, science has even gotten so good that in some cases it can tell you the color of those feathers.
So go ahead and invent as many gaps as you like and spackle them over with G-d. Science will methodically plod on, sometimes revising theories, sometimes strengthening them, sometimes inventing new ones. One thing it won't ever do is claim something must be a certain way merely based on failures of the current theories to explain it.
Ok, so now that my post was modded down to -1,with 48 replies, I'm going to make another point.
I've obviously touched a nerve with the amount and content of the replies to this post. People are passionate about what they believe, and want to make sure that there is significant discussion around this topic. Yet, the post was modded down to -1. Why? Because it challenges the status quo?
What are we so passionate about defending, yet we're trying to silence critics. If the critics are wrong, lets move their arguments to the forefront and let them stand/fall on their own merit.
No, because it is stupid. Seriously, the same old tired analogies and false equivalences and willful misperceptions are trotted out, again and again, often word for word. There is really no significant discussion whatsoever, just an attempt to make sure that the other side doesn't have the playing field all to themselves.
When someone presents a scientific idea, there are tests to prove it, and it can be disproven if those tests fail.
When someone presents and idea and says the proof is "God said so" or "God moves in mysterious ways", there is no test which can disprove it. Therefore it isn't science.
Or, to put it another way, science tries to understand how things work, religion takes them on faith and doesn't care how they work.
You may think of the idea of science as a religion, in that scientists have faith in the idea of testable and falsifiable ideas, but science itself is not a religion, it is the set of testable and falsifiable ideas.
Infuriate left and right
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't? And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
I'll just let just Carl Sagan explain to you the difference between science and pseudoscience (in this case creationism):
Pseudoscience differs from erroneous science. Science thrives on errors, cutting them away one by one. False conclusions are drawn all the time, but they are drawn tentatively. Hypotheses are framed so that they are capable of being disproved. A succession of alternative hypotheses is confronted by experiment and observation. Science gropes and staggers towards improved understanding. Proprietary feelings are of course offended when a scientific hypotheses is disproved, but such disproofs are recognized as central to the scientific enterprise.
Pseudoscience is just the opposite. Hypotheses are often framed precisely so they are invulnerable to any experiment that offers a prospect of disproof, so even in principle they cannot be invalidated. Practitioners are often defensive and wary. Skeptical scrutiny is opposed. When the pseudo-scientific hypothesis fails to catch fire with scientists, conspiracies to suppress it are deduced.
From his book, The Demon-Haunted World - Science as a Candle in the Dark (1996).
"Pinkie Pie/Twilight Sparkle Pony Cult Suicide of 2011"
Damn it, you made me actually google that!!!
If you can't be good, be good at it!
created by your local omniscient, omnipotent (from our point of view) superbeing. It can't be ruled out. At the same time, if it's true, it's simply not knowable. The aforementioned superbeing could add or delete information in our awarenesses at will.
So, if true, then it's not knowable. Actually, even if it's false, it's not knowable since you can't prove the negative.
Agnostics rule.
Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
Would you prefer to be a Nautilus then?
Don't know. Never having been one, I am not qualified to judge.
The Allies, including the US, defeated Japan during WWII and Korea was freed from a very oppressive colonial regime. Then the US defended the South during the Korean war. Korea's view toward the US was quite favorable which made them easy targets for Western culture including missionary work. Korea wanted to be more like the US and distance themselves from Japan and Japanese religions so adopting Christianity was a natural move for them.
We still use astronomical observations from Baghdad in that period (800 to 1000 CE).
I second this.
This induced difference in macro- and micro- evolution is on the same ballpark as making a difference between macro- and micro- arithmetic. We don't call macro-arithmetic the calculation 10000+10000 and we don't call micro-arithmetic the calculation 10+10. The same would apply for evolution. Just as arithmetic is called (in a simplified way) the basic operations (such as addition) between any two numbers regardless of which these numbers are, in the same way it is called evolution the basic operations (such as recombination, replication, replacement) between genes, regardless of which these genes are. In arithmetic, the result is a different number. In evolution the result is a different organism. To go on with the analogy, we could agree to call micro-arithmetic when the result of addition is in the same order of magnitude as the operands, and macro-arithmetic when the result is in a different order of magnitude. So is with evolution, micro-evolution we could agree to call when the result is in the same order of magnitude as the operands (read as mutated offspring are able to sexually produce other offspring with the original species) and macro-evolution to call a result that is in a different order of magnitude (mutated offspring are not able to sexually produce other offspring with the original species. We could agree further on to call this mutated offspring a new species).
I should thank God though, for providing me with logic through the natural process of evolution, thus able to see through a pile of divine bullshit, and therefore proclaiming myself an atheist.
I don't really blame God for that one. Even for production servers I cheap out and get the non-ECC ram. The Almighty One gave us crappy memory probably because he wanted to save a few bucks.
Somehow this same dimwit managed to give proper eyes to nautilus though
Nautilus has a pinhole eye.If photo camera evolution err... design is of any indication, an eye with a lens is more advanced. Now, if someone developed all living beings in existence, then everything would use the same eye design -- to save on development costs, naturally! I mean why did Nautilus get the cheap pinhole version - was he trying to save on license fees or something? The supreme being should issue free upgrades to all the outdated species!
Creationism already had its day as the chief scientific theory. Heck, it had a few thousand years .... It just doesn't help you understand anything, probably because it's wrong.
Play Command HQ online
Yet their remains persistent and valid questions posed by folks that you "know" are wrong that cannot be answered.
Persistent questions, yes. Not valid questions. Questions are only valid if they have something worthwhile. ALL creationist "questions" have been disproven on factual discoveries.
On what basis do you conclude that they are "wrong based on observational science"?
On the basis of observational evidence contradicting their claims?
What observations do they ignore or use incorrectly?
Google it. There are lists all over the place. Lists that even link to at least one source of creationist claims.
I'll wager all evolutionists interested in the science HAS engaged in thoughtful and honest investigation about creationism. You're on the internet. Have the intellectual honesty to look up the myriad examples of the debunking of creationist claims.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
Intelligent design proponents make me want to grab them with both hands and slap them with the third.
I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.
So you believe that you deserve perfection then? You desire a world of perfect beings? How boring.
Who said anything about perfection?
I've obviously touched a nerve with the amount and content of the replies to this post. People are passionate about what they believe, and want to make sure that there is significant discussion around this topic. Yet, the post was modded down to -1. Why? Because it challenges the status quo?
Protip: when you make a post that gets a bunch of angry responses and downmods, it's possible that this means you've "touched a nerve," that you're a bold iconoclast "challeng[ing] the status quo" and speaking truth to power ... but honestly, that's not the way to bet. Usually, it just means you're being a schmuck.
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Observational science doesn't disprove
Russel's Teapot -- There is a teapot orbiting the sun, somewhere between Mars and Jupiter. Go ahead, prove me wrong!
So what. Maybe I do.
The point is if there was a designer, he would either be an idiot or a jerk. Which seems to line up nicely with the christian god, who is some how omnipotent but needs everyone to tell him how great he is.
Asking good questions about someone else's position doesn't make your position any more right. You can poke holes all day in evolutionary theory and it'd still be way sounder than creationism, which by the way was the top scientific theory for thousands of years and never managed to explain a thing.
Play Command HQ online
This phenomenon may have started in the US, but they know very well they'll eventually reach some point of saturation in such a politically divided country. That's why creation science proponents are on an all-out assault on science throughout the world, especially in developing nations.
http://www.nwcreation.net/international.html
Oh, you thought it had something to do with missionary work and spreading the Gospel message? NO. These organizations (Institute for Creation Research, Creation Ministries International, The Discovery Institute, and a few other smaller ones) are big business. Look at their Web sites. From the very first page, they're either asking for donations or they're selling you their wares. Homeschooling textbooks, tracts, videos. Yes, the missionary work is integral to their purpose -- they need a wide audience of buyers. They're happy to do that too.
You aren't going to be able to counter this movement with any kind of science education. They have their own "science" now, any science from any other source will be viewed with tremendous suspicion if it conflicts with their view of creation. You need to work this at its source -- by educating people on the history of creationist thought, and the reasons *why* they believe what they do -- educate them on the *reason* why they have a certain *interpretation* of the Bible. If you're an atheist, you'll think it's easy enough, just discredit the Bible. But attacking a person's faith at its core is NOT going to help, it only adds fuel to the fire. So please DON'T take that approach. Seriously, it will make things much, much worse.
The only way forward is to educate Christians on creationism as a movement itself, in a way that is NOT abusive to their faith. Get people to learn specifically about the history of the three organizations mentioned above! There is a tremendous amount of dirty laundry there (see http://truecreation.info/ or the book Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight) Better yet, find respected Christians who they trust, who understand science -- and geology, cosmology, and evolutionary biology in particular. It can be done:
http://biologos.org/
http://truecreation.info/
http://theistic-evolution.com/
Books:
The Language of Science and Faith, Karl Giberson and Francis Collins
Origins: A Reformed Look at Creation, Design, and Evolution, Deborah Haarsma and Loren Haarsma
Searching for Truth with a Broken Flashlight, Michael Hawley
Beyond the Firmament, Gordon J. Glover
Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America’s Soul, Kenneth Miller
The Passionate Intellect, Alister McGrath
I Love Jesus and I Accept Evolution, Denis O. Lamoureux
The Lost World of Genesis One, John Walton
You hate your flawed eyes. In fact, it appears you hate all of your flaws, based upon the acid coated rhetoric you displayed in your initial response. Because of your vehemence, I concluded that you wished your inferior body were designed in a manner that is, or approaches perfection. You do not seek perfection? So how is the point of failure in your eyesight such a considerable issue? If you are satisfied with your current state of existence, then you would register no complaints. This is not the case.
Slashdot is full of people constantly whining about how stupid creationists are and how incredibly smart and enlightened evolutionists are. Did you ever stop to think that maybe the problem is how you incredibly smart and enlightened beings are trying to teach us "stupid creationists" the theory of evolution? The textbooks do a terrible job at it and I have yet to meet an evolutionist that hasn't talked themselves into a hole they can't get out of when debating their views with me. I'm perfectly willing to accept evolution, the problem is that I haven't heard an explanation of it that even remotely makes sense.
My point is covered throughout this discussion at this point, and even within this thread. Evolution is a description of speciation, not origin. Evolution does not propose that humans evolved from monkeys, who evolved from dogs, who evolved from pigs, who evolved from fish , etc. The argument from creationists often sets up this scheme, and asks for proof of macro-evolution. Evolution is not creation, and is easily observable once you eliminate that definition.
But that does not explain the increasing number of churches that are foregoing the IRS opportunity to censor them by not being an official IRS registered organization.The members of such churches would rather be free to say whatever they want, without being subject to censorship from the government. Therefore they are no longer tax exempt.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
There's a pretty big gap between "perfect" and "not having obvious, stupid flaws."
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
So now that your post is at +5 I suppose $DEITY modded you up.
Not necessarily. Look up imaginary time.
So, naturally, the alternative is to imagine the answer, not think through the problem. Eh?
Public service notice: your beliefs are worthless. From a scientific standpoint, question *your own* assumptions first (it's a very Christian concept, ironically). For instance, let's assume your Yatzee notion is correct. What do you know about the universe that would make that a weak argument for your point?
Having faith in something means believing without evidence. I think there's something self centered about that. There's a suggestion that your beliefs are somehow more important than the truth.
Play Command HQ online
-- Creatard, posted using prayer and not a modern computer.
Science: It works, bitches.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Correct! Most Creationists cannot tell the difference between:
* The Theory of Evolution - Origin of the species
* The Big Bang Theory - Origin of all matter in the universe (and the variety of elements)
* Abiogenesis - Origin of Life
Why? They don't really have anything meaningful to say about any of the above, what they have is fear. They fear their children learning too much about one field of science, just enough to start questioning their religious indoctrination. This simply leads to more unanswerable or uncomfortable questions about their Faith and can ultimately lead them to realize that taking a book written in the Iron Age as literal truth is BS and who knows what else they were taught is BS!
So apparently to many Creationists the 9th commandment (not bearing false witness) does not apply if it's used to keep sheep in the flock. And yes, I've been lied by enough religious folks and clergy to realize it's not a small scale issue.
For fun, go to reddit and check out the /r/ex(somefaith) subreddits (click on "Top" and select links from "all time" to get a good feel). Tons of stories of kids and adults learning science and coming to the eventual realization that their parents/church were lying to them. Some to get you started are:
People coming out from different faiths
Ex-Catholics
Ex-Jehova's Witnessess (excellent read)
Ex-Mormons
Ex-Muslims
If you're God created everything and lies to us with false evidence, then your god is a liar and an asshole. What else might he be lying to you about? And is a lying god really worthy of your worship and respect?
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
On Slashdot, creation/evolution stories vie with global warming/climate change stories for the highest activity rate. That of course brings in advertising money, otherwise they probably wouldn't run these controversial subjects all the time. If you don't believe me, check out the record.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Also, "lying for Christ" is still lying and Jesus will send you to hell for it. ;-)
Faith answers no questions. Pulling shit out your ass and making up answers does not in any meaningful way answer anything.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
Well, an evolutionist view of the world is still based on assumptions which means its foundations can not be scientifically proven either. Just because one side "is wrong" doesn't mean the other "is right".
Please research ID yourself. And the Dover decision where a conservative judge eviscerated the notion that ID is a science. Not only did the trial show the lack of any scientific support for ID, it showed that the proponents of ID know that there isn't much support but continue to promote only for the sake of opposing evolution for religious reasons and not for the sake of science.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
"Scientists who believe in a young universe, ID and all that nonsense should return their PhD for a money refund of their universities. Apparently their eduction wasn't successful."
Scientists who believe in a young universe, ID and all that nonsense should return their PhD for a money refund of their universities. Apparently their BRAINWASHING wasn't successful.
There, fixatd that for you!
The Human eye if a fantastically designed optical machine. It is capable of a dynamic range of 1,000,000,000 to 1. i.e. a good eye can detect 1 photo (although elsewhere I heard it is 7 photons, YMMV.) If you can design an optical device that is capable of the dynamic range of an eye and make it build itself within a woam of a woman then you will be up for a noble price.
I remember hearing that current advanced low light instruments designed by humans will be destroyed if they where given the brightness the human had to detail with. (hence they have safely cutoffs to prevent damage.) but I am not an expert in this subject.
The common argument against the human eye is that it is "wired the wrong way around". I.e. The blood vessles in the eye are in front of the optical sensors in the eye.
Yet if a human designed the eye, he would put the blood vessels behind the photo optical sensors. The problem with this is that you will be blinded by the first bright light for up to 30 mins. That car light that when by you, opps your blind for the next hour.
By having the blood in front, it allows the sensors to cool down and get oxygen more quickly. To get around the problem of the blood vessels, the designer has place between the sensors and blood vesselsOptical Fibers!. These are hour glass shaped fiber optical cables giving 99.9% of the light.
But wait theres more, not only do this design allow for rapid restoration of the sensor from light, it also improves on the sight by reducing the back scattering of light in the back of the eye which is the main cause of lose of resolution in the eye.
To sum up:
You pick slashdotters, which eye do you prefer? Who is an Idiotic designer and who is an Intelligent designer?
:-)
As for the ID, walk out to the street, point to the first car you see and tell me how that came about by only naturalistic processes over millions of years. Having a designer as a cause is logical. Limited "scientific answers" to just naturism is purely philosophical and not logic., (i.e. Religion). Please keep you arguments logical, and not religious.
John 11-35
I do question, in fact went many years not believing because I couldn't accept a young earth view.
But how the universe actually began are theories there is no proof either way. There is significant evidence to suggest the big bang (or at least the theory allows to encompass all that we see/prove today without falling apart), however I can point to that and say that God start it, or you can point and say it just started.
I'm not sure science will every prove that there wasn't or was a creator that started the big bang.
So yes my faith does believe in something without concrete proof, but like I've said there are many things that tip me towards a God. I've seen people healed after being annointed prayed over by the elders that was supposedly uncurable, i've seen other things that support something beyond our comprehension. And with that said, and myself being tipped towards a God, I'm not sure that's self centered.
You could say that people believe that the big bang "just started" without intervention is by faith, since sure there's a theory but can't be proved (at least at this time anyways).
But I'm sure you'll attack all that or dismiss it. Which is fine. I'm comfortable with my beliefs to understand not everyone is going to believe or believe something different, and as free human beings that is your right. We all make choices in life about many things, this is one that I've made a choice to believe.
I realize that this might be a troll post but what the hell. Science admits to errors and corrects them; that's part of the scientific process, it's also part of scientific progress. Revising theories means that we are developing a more accurate understanding of the world around us, it's a good thing. There is no Holy See of science that declares one theory or one version of a theory to be dogma and another heretical. You are perfectly welcome and encouraged to submit your own theory on whatever topic you choose. All that is required by the scientific community is that your theory matches available data and is testable (aka falsifiable).
And why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that the world was created (by a higher power or other means).
"Points of view" that experiments demonstrate to be false should be discarded. Creationists are not willing to accept the results of experiments, so what they are doing can not be accepted as science by honest people.
If I asked "Why is it OK to have multiple points of view in the scientific community, unless you think that gravity doesn't exist?", how would you respond?
South Koreans were created by the Xel'Naga.
The eye is badly designed, but the whole giving birth thing is a disaster. What kind of intelligent designer would have the baby come out through the pelvis?
Interestingly enough, that is specifically addressed in the Bible. After the original sin, God announced that the woman's punishment was that he would greatly increase her pain in childbirth.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
This statement shows a complete ignorance of geology and plate tectonics that I don't know where to begin. First of all, every point on the Earth does not go under the same geologic process. A point under a mile of ocean does not experience the same geologic forces as under a mile of glacier or a point in a desert. Second tectonic forces vary like subduction forces different points under different layers or pushes a point to be a mountain.
Indeed. As an addendum to this, there are areas of the earth's lithosphere - cratons - which have remained geologically stable for the majority of the planet's history. Spanning multiple supercontinent formations and breakups.
This is not advanced science, this is encyclopedic summation. Basic stuff. If one screws that up, maybe one should question other firmly held 'facts'.
Creationism is based on the same facts as operation science gives uniformitarianism.
Uniformitarianism (Atheists) and Creationists both put their own interpretation of the facts.
Pick a subject and go look up what a creationist would believe, http://creation.com/qa#faqs
Please learn about the "other side"'s position before declaring them wrong. There are many strawman arguments atheists put up to defend your failing world view being passed of as a science.
For example:
- Natural Selection (Discovered by a creationist) - is proven by operation science, yet this does not help GTE evolution (goo to you via the zoo type of change).
NS doesn't add information - it only selects from what is there.
- Mutations - also fact - yet this destroys the creature. It doesn't build up creature. (there are a handful of good mutation by destroying functioning things, this observed best case still goes against GTE. To prove my point, walk into a necular plant. If you turn green like the hulk, I am wrong. If you die from cancers and tumors, that only proves that mutations are bad and goes against GTE evolution.
- Natural Selection again: It's doing it's best to slow down the degrade of humans, i.e. by removing the seriously damaged creatures.
So we use facts but we dont try to "spin" it like evolutionists do. We rely on observed repeatable evidence, not speculations based on your philosophy.
I do recommend reading up of the website linked above.
Cheers. Chris.
John 11-35
How is it obvious or stupid? The issue is compensated for by the use of stereoscopy.
A world of perfection would be a boring world devoid of variation or event. It's the imperfections of this world that introduce those random elements called events. If you wish this, so be it. I, do not.
Scientists have to start explaining science in terms people can understand so they don't have to resort to burning witches. They could start with "Evolution was God's idea!"
This is the same country that believes in fan death, btw.
This is also the country with one of the highest literacy rates and one of the highest educational rankings.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Senseless comment with no relation to the topic at hand. The appearance of foolishness pervades your character.
Seeing as how none of the clergymen I've seen in my neck of the woods are driving a car that cost less than $50,000, I'd say this is the more likely explanation.
I guess I need to live in a better neck of the woods, because the clergymen I know all seem to have other jobs just to make ends meet.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Yet so many scientists refuse to question their own theories and postulates. I see far too many thought exercises and far too little research. It seems that personality attack and condescension have become a required character trait of scientists. I have no respect for someone with a foul mouth and snark responses.
Watch how North Korea's philosophical gains and standard of living go up as they realize that they're not just subjects of an infallible higher power but rather highly evolved, decision-making meme machines. Watch how unbridled studies reward them with more insightful students, allowing them to understand science in a way no Creationist could ever imagine.
Though I will say it is not great to believe in "Science" as infallible, as any good scientist could tell you.
If you don't see the relation to the topic, then you truly are ignorant and not only have the appearance of foolishness, but you actually are a fool.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
People familiar with evolution do not assume creationists are wrong. We know they are wrong based on observational science.
Actually, we know that they are "not even wrong" because the way they set up their beliefs, there's no way to test if they are wrong.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
By having the blood in front, it allows the sensors to cool down and get oxygen more quickly
How does that work? If the blood supply was right behind the photo receptors it would be the same distance from them but would also not obstruct the view.
it also improves on the sight by reducing the back scattering of light in the back of the eye which is the main cause of lose of resolution in the eye
How does that work? There is tissue behind the eye either way, how would blood vessels cause more scattering then what is there now? And would it be worse then the scattering caused by light passing through the blood supply in front of the eyes as currently happens?
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
If I remember correctly Soul has the worlds biggest pentecostal church. South Koreans are generally quit intense people in various fields of life, religion included. This anti-evolution stance is only logical, though surprising.
They might have a decent hypothesis if they took the facts and then drew their conclusions. Instead, they take the conclusions given to them in church, and find fallacious evidence that might stand up to a fifth grader. They don't bother being taken seriously by the scientific community, because they know that they can't be; instead, they target politicians and schools to prey on young, vulnerable minds who don't know any better.
As a disclaimer, I don't really care if people are religious, but I do care when they try to teach scientifically unsound ideas in a science classroom.
On the scale from fantasy to fact, where theory ranks somewhere around the middle, "There is a God" and "There is no God" ranks right next to each other.
On the other hand, given your own scale and implied reasonableness, "there is no way to know if there's a god, so I'm not going to bother wasting my life worrying about it" is a better theory and plan of action than either of your false dichotomy alternatives.
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Now if only I were better at practicing Christianity, especially the golden rule.
A noble goal. Thankfully, virtually every religion has developed a variation on the golden rule. One might almost say it was...fit.
> Having a designer as a cause is logical.
No it isn't. It just shows that YOU have no clue what logic actually means.
AND You have not the slightest grasp about self-organising molecules.
Assuming a omni-potent being defying all laws of physics, chemistry, math and biology...THAT is the text book definition of illogical, irrational, superstitious medieval mind frame.
Comparing a biological structure that evolved several times over the course of billions of years with a car made of inorganic metal.....wow, seriously???
I have a theory - human understanding of the universe is a constant effort. The older any particular theory is, the more likely it is to be superseded by more detailed and accurate theories based on painstaking observation and research. The object of the game is to accept that every theory however useful it might be in its day is merely a placeholder. The stronger the theory is, the easier it will be to find supporting evidence behind it, and when a competing theory has exhausted its supply of evidence, it is time for it to retire gracefully, with humility and without shame, for anyone presented with the available evidence at the time cannot be blamed for coming to the same conclusions.
It should NOT try to cling to its position kicking and screaming, by bullying people into ignoring any other point of view, sweeping opposing theories under the carpet as 'unproven' while reserving the right to be known as 'fact'. You cant bury the truth unless you hide all the spades.
Humans always ask questions, it is how children become knowledgeable adults. It is impossible not to wonder what it all means as much as it is impossible for a thinking man to try and give his best answer to a tough question. If you want my theory, the Bible and its ilk is the best guess about the workings of the universe in a society that generally attributed anything that couldn't be explained to 'all powerful invisible people in the sky that meddle in the affairs of mortal men', which was more or less the best available theory at the time. Fast forward 6000 years and 50% of the world seems to have accepted the sky man theory as fact, based on something called "FAITH", which seems to be a virtue that bypasses the need for the 'PROOF' that they require from anyone else that might dare to challenge them.
Well all I have to say is, I don't feel the need to prove evolution to anyone - I have faith in it :)
Indeed. Making this fan death tradition all the more amusing.
Moderate Christians like you are the ones who open the door to more radical and extremist views of your religion by making it ok and tolerable to believe in superstition and ancient myths. Every airplane hijacking terrorist and abortion clinic bomber believe in their superstitions just as strongly as you believe in yours. Giving legitimacy and "respect" to your superstition implies that theirs deserve the same.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
I mentioned nothing about religion or prayer, neither did I deny the research of science. I simply questioned the omnipotent persona science likes to frequently portray. Did you take the time to comprehend my original piece of literature? Or did you simplify my comment into the common vernacular in the same lewd manner in which you responded?
"...the creationists have created a definition for evolution that is not what the true concept is..."
Can you elaborate on this a little more? How is the creationist view of evolution different from the general scientific consensus?
The encyclopedic answer is that evolution is any change across successive generations in the inherited characteristics of biological populations. It's a process.
The creationist answer is that evolution is part of the domination of materialism and naturalism in the world of the mind. Italics are their words. The tricky part is that that justifies, in their minds, a pile of statements about evolution that don't conform to the encyclopedic answer. Some are contradictory, some are insightful but misunderstand science and/or encyclopedic evolution, and some are plain nonsense.
IOW, it doesn't matter what evolution is, only that it is beaten and God is brought into the science classroom. Presumably, for your own good.
Please don't use the word macroevolution it helps creationists pretend that big bang theory and geology have something to do with darwin.
The evolution myth is unproven philosophical story being push onto everyone as a sacred cow.
I can't understand how knowledgeable men in evolution will be willing to believe in this as a science when science does it best to show how it is impossible. In the end I found such people when shown the flaws in thier "evidences" chooses to believe despite what they are shown. In the vain hope that someone else knows more than what they know and so their really is no God for them to get right with.
Not trying to do an emotional argument below..
I find the myth of evolution to be rather insidious, its a world view which has fast effects on the morality of a man. e.g. There is nothing wrong in killing a bag of chemicals is there? Nothing wrong in stealing, etc... Therefor this should not be part of our culture. Society will be better off without this cancer.
Tell me, since you say observational science says evolution is correct, what is the answer to the below:
Please show these evidences in operational science.
John 11-35
Wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-assembly
http://www.dur.ac.uk/mark.wilson/papers/mexican_paper.pdf
http://www.tau.ac.il/lifesci/departments/biotech/members/gazit/documents/38.pdf
If we have to have the stupidity of religion dumbing down our country... it's great to hear it's been exported and now countries that would otherwise trounce us in terms of academic, scientific, technical, engineering, and mathematical achievement have one of the same handicaps flourishing in their corner of the world as we have.
Long live stupidity!!! Hooray!
This is slightly misleading.
Here is how it actually works:
You have Allele A, which has a comparitive 3% fitness advantage (organisms with A have 1.03x more kids), meaning that it only takes ~768 generations in a population of 1 million (average human population, excluding the last 5,000 years) for A to become reliably present in the community.
At this point, Allele B, which depends on Allele A and has a comparitive 3% fitness advantage on its own, can start to spread amongst the population. After another 768 generations, it is a reliably present dependency.
After this, a modified version of A, which we will call A*, comes about, which is dependent on B and backwards-compatible with A, so B still works with the new A*, and A* has some comparitive fitness advantage so it spreads too.
Along comes C, dependant on B and A*, and then along comes B*, dependant on C and A*, and then along comes D, dependant on A* and B* and C... etc
at the end, you get a crazy fucked up archlinux-style dependency hell where if you remove one thing everything breaks, but this absolutely does not mean that the system could not have evolved incrementally. To say so is retarded.
GFA/M/S d-- s: a--- C++++ UBL++$ P+ L+++ !E- W++ N+ !o K- w--- !O !M !V PS++ PE Y+ PGP+ t+++ 5- X+ R tv@ b++ DI++++ D+ G
Evolution science isn't the side of the 'debate' that is ignoring evidence. It's the 'Intelligent Design' side which selectively ignores physical, observed evidence. Unfortunately, there are folks (like yourself) who have bought into the idea that ignorance (the lack of a certain piece of arbitrary knowledge) is proof that something is 'wrong'.
Science, on the other hand, looks at that same ignorance, and attempts to find the information which will fill that 'gap'. If that information disproves the current theory, then we look for a theory which better models and is still consistent with all known information. Creationism and Intelligent Design don't do this. They have their answer, they selectively allow/ignore the observed data in order to support their answer. That's not science.
You're seriously going to group psychological science with creationism? Don't talk about evidence if you can't come up with any against the claims made in thousands and thousands of articles in respected journals.
Thanks for the response. I'll only add that if I don't believe that a god started by the big bang, it doesn't imply that I do believe that it started in some other fashion for which I also have no evidence.
Play Command HQ online
And if you'd care to explain how sexual reproduction...
Just taking individual parts of a car and saying "None of the systems can exist without the others so they must have been `designed` at the same time to work together" is just bullshit.
Ok.. So you got the bull, now where is the cow so we can keep things going here? (smile)
Looking around the barnyard, off hand I see two major reproductive methods that are hard to explain how they come about using the theory of evolution. For example: The chickens lay eggs, which develop and hatch into chickens, and the Cows give birth to to a calf. Using the evolution theory, one must argue that these two methods somehow evolved into existence. Problem here is that in order to make the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction it takes two independent mutations happening at the same time and location that produce a male and female before you get the transition. Seems that this implies pretty long odds. Then if you consider the observed rate of mutation we currently see, the probabilities that such a complex system as even simple sexual reproduction just happens gets very very remote (arguably impossible).
Taking your car argument, I would argue for a designer (i.e. a creator) when looking at a system as complex as even a model-T. Obviously somebody took the time to design the parts, manufacturer the parts and assemble them because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created. So why is it not a good argument for one fundamental part of a complex thing we call life? This is true even if you break the Model-T into it's basic parts. A simple gear, nut or bolt is not going to appear from nowhere much less assemble themselves into a running model-T. How much more complex is even simple life?
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist, but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed. You would do well to at least consider how best to answer the issues they raise.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I am glad that one person has successfully read and interpreted my post. Exactly. Theories should bide their time, and when they are proven wrong or replaced, they should step down(so to speak). My issue is thus: many scientists sit beside a theory treating it as a solidified law. This confidence is misplaced, and leads to false theories being propagated for extended periods of time. As for Faith, I personally have Faith in the creation of the Earth by God. I have no desire to debate that here, as every religious debate I have ever been in quickly descends into foolish name calling and character attacks. I have purposefully abstracted religion out of this discussion.
When a person looks at a problem with a predetermined solution, evidences can simply be twisted to fit that solution.
Once you believe that there is an omnipotent being who creates everything ...
Interesting, yes? How does one become convinced of the existence of omnipotent beings? Why would anyone want to be?
"Tongue tied and twisted, just an Earth bound misfit
Well, that's the thing. He might say he *did* tell us what he did, but you went off and used your own method to come to a different conclusion. As far as I know, no god to date has certified the scientific method as sound.
Now, if that deity had said, "Science is awesome and tells you how everything was done, trust me," you might have a point.
What I do hear is that most deities of the revelating sort are pretty insistent on faith as how you know the truth. Why they might do that is beyond me, but you really can't say that you weren't been warned adequately. You just don't buy it, but your skepticism doesn't, in and of itself, make you correct.
Of course, I don't believe in Young Earth Creationism any more than you do, but science has not replaced philosophy, and quite possibly never will.
Not just that. The speed of light is slow. Many of the stars and galaxies we see are further than 6000 light years away. That is assuming the Cepheid and other methods actually work (which is likely).
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html
This ring began to glow about a year after the supernova explosion, when the light from the explosion reached it. Hence we know that the diameter of the ring is about two light years, and by measuring its angular diameter in the sky, the distance to the supernova was determined to be approximately 169,000 light years.
Sure. Here ya go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Wrong. Wrong. And wrong.
Natural selection was coined by DARWIN himself. If you call the father of the evolution theory a creationist that would be beyond being hilarious.
Natural selection only means that those organisms best adapted to an environment and best fitted to reproduction will survive. Nothing else. Survival of the fittest.
If an animal, lets call it Dodo, is not fit (bright) enough and doesn't reproduce enough, it will die out. But this does apply event to an individual and it's individual gene set. (modern medicine counteracts these effects)
Mutations are not Hulk-mode mutations. Mutations do happen ALL THE TIME. Mutations are the very engine that drives evolution. If an evolutionary step, aka mutation, is successful it will be inherited by the offspring. If a mutation is not successful, aka dangerous, that strain of creature will die off.
(see : natural selection)
The problem is that creationist ARE spinning and bending and twisting facts like no one else.
AND : you and your sibblings have ABSOLUTELY NO clue about the evolution theory. You simply do not understand it.
Evolution happens ALL the time. 15% of the human population are missing the flexor palmaris longus. Why? Because the muscle is not longer needed and the evolutionary process is slowly eliminating that muscle. But these changes are taking place in ages, thousands of years.
The "Young" universe is straw man argument for creationist.
A modern creationist would say the Bible says the Earth is 6000 years old as on Earth. The Bible also gives an age for the universe (day 1&2) and the stars at day 4 about 6000 years ago.
About now you would be thinking I just contradicted myself. let me explain:
The bible also says 17 different locations that the heavens is stretched out like a tend. (Space is expanding.)
Time is not constant. The time on earth runs slower than on a satellite. GPS system must compensate for this otherwise you location will be off 400m a day.
The time dilation is very weak only a few nanoseconds i think per year. But if you approach a black hole, they say that time stops when you get deep enough into the gravity well.
So heres the creationist scenerio compared to the big bang: What happens if you have all of the universe within 500 MLyr?
You will get the entire universe inside the event horizon of a black hole!
Time stops on day 4.
After day 4, God starts to stretch out the heaven (space), as the mass of stars & galaixes move out of the event horizions, time for those stars speed up. the light from those stars will reach earth as the event horizon reduces.
So for a galaxy on the edge of the universe, you get 14billion years, on earth, maybe just 24 hours (if not weeks or a few years, we still see the universe expanding).
On Earth you get only the 6 days of creation yet billion of years for galaixies.
This means Earth would have to be near/in the center of the universe. And if you see the red shifts of galaxies they are quanitized into rings. This pattern would only be seen if we were near the center.
http://creation.com/our-galaxy-is-the-centre-of-the-universe-quantized-redshifts-show
John 11-35
What if they aren't? It is indeed possible to claim that the universe was created 'old', so that all the light from billions of light years ago was there when it came to being, all the fossils were created within the earth where they lay and all the signs of continental drift were there to begin with. There's no way to disprove this possibility through science, and , in principle, it could indeed be true.
However, that doesn't change the science. Science is not about being right, it's about constructing a view of the world that is consistent with what we observe of it. An analogy:
"John Pseudonymous Smith went to a convenience store, chose a packet of gum that cost 50c and a six-pack of beer that cost $6.95. How much did he pay for his purchases?" Normally we would answer '$7.45' and all would be well. However, if there really *was* a person called 'John Pseudonymous Smith' who recently shoplifted those two items from a nearby convenience store, you could answer the question 'Nothing', and you would be *completely and unquestionably correct*. But you can *not* say that answer is mathematically accurate. You can *not* claim to be good at mathematics based on that answer, nor can you insist that mathematics is wrong for failing to take into account John's unfortunate kleptomanic tendencies. Shoplifting of no shoplifting, the mathematics don't change: if you pose that question as a *mathematical* puzzle, the correct *mathematical* answer to the question is still '$7.45'.
So even if the world *really was* created by God recently, and you *know* it, even if you *genuinely have accurate supernatural knowledge* about it, you *still* can't call it science. And you can't go around saying that science is wrong to claim a five-billion-year-earth, because a five-billion-year-earth is what all non-supernatural evidence we now have points to, and that's all that science claims.
But what exactly is "perfection"? Every engineer knows that the design and engineering of a complex system entails many compromises. Making one thing perform better may very well have a downside, perhaps in energy consumption, perhaps in reliability, perhaps in durability, or some other property. However, there's also cases where a design is just plain bad, and does something badly, with no corresponding upside. I don't know whether the human eye's design has upsides or not, I'm not a biologist, though perhaps for the amount of light we're exposed to, it wouldn't be simple to re-engineer our eyes to have blood vessels behind the retinae because the receptors would be overloaded; undersea creatures, after all, live in an environment with a tiny fraction of the ambient lighting that we enjoy, so they require far more sensitive eyes; maybe they can't handle full sunlight on land like we can (I don't know, ask a marine biologist). Of course, it'd be nice to have eyes that can handle the full spectrum, from the darkness of the sea floor all the way to looking directly at the sun, but maybe that isn't possible with existing biological systems, without having some giant penalty such as greater energy consumption, greater size, needing some special mechanisms to handle the huge differences in light levels (and those special mechanisms being susceptible to reliability problems and consuming more energy, esp. in early development), etc.
The whole idea of evolution is that nature tries to evolve all creatures to be ideal fits for their environment (although, of course, the environment itself is constantly changing); there's probably no way to make something that's a perfect fit for all environments without breaking the laws of physics.
Given the constraints of mammalian bodies (head, four legs, etc.), how else would you do it? Where else would you put the "amusement park", where it can also serve as (its primary purpose) a reproductive function? Anything you do differently is likely to have other downsides.
Just curious if you don't believe God started it, and it doesn't imply you believe that that it started in some other fashion, what does it imply then.
I mean if God didn't start it, doesn't it have to be started by some other fashion by just normal logic?
Since you're typing this on a computer (science - materials science, quantum physics, computational science) that's connected to millions of others, that runs reliably on well understood scientific concepts and that uses electricity, as well as all of the other millions of devices you use every day that work reliably thanks to all those same scientific principles that we've developed over the history of the human race, I hope you recognize the irony in questioning why we have confidence in the method and process of science and the people whose job it is to apply it.
The fact that we have limited brains and we know that they frequently deceive us is exactly the reason that we have a scientific method and process in the first place. There's no such thing as perfect truth, but we can certainly approach modeling reality with more and more exactness thanks to a self-correcting method. Humans may be flawed, but the universe has shown itself to be consistent and that we can figure it out to more and more degrees of precision despite those flaws. I'd say that's a hurdle worthy of being proud of overcoming. YMMV.
You're right. That's why we don't do this. Only you think we do.
Plenty of times. This is what makes science great: it's self-correcting. That's the entire point.
Unfounded assertion.
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
You miss the entire point of the scientific endeavor.
Your post was no so much original literature as it was the same rehashed "Hahaha! You think you're so smart, but you don't really know!!" tripe that we hear from anti-science creationists all the time and the only response it is worth of is, I repeat, "Science: it works. Bitches."
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
"it can't be proven 100% correct "
Nothing can be proven 100% correct, especially to someone who doesn't want to believe the evidence. Evolution, like every other human activity, makes certain assumptions. “Assumption” is a scientific way of saying “believe”. One underlying assumption about evolution is that time itself has always proceeded at the present pace. We do not even understand what time really is. Evolution depends upon lots of “time”. We measure time by something moving in “space”. Do we really understand the nature of space?
How do we “prove” even recent history? There are people today who will deny that the Holocaust ever took place, despite the evidence we have that it did. There are people that assert that all the evidence of man landing on the moon, is nothing more than a Hollywood production. In the end, evidence, especially historical evidence, has to be BELIEVED. It can never be proven unless someone invents a time machine. Even then, if somebody did travel in a time machine, the rest of us would still have to BELIEVE whatever evidence and testimony that person or persons brought back. The Bible, and everything it contains, cannot be proven, it can only be believed, the same as any other historical document. The fossil record is a historical document in the earth, which must also be believed.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
Actual PMV creation myth: 1000 years before Episode 1, the world was destroyed, and the one we're living in is the one Princess Celestia restored from backup.
Hey, it makes as much sense as creationism/ID. And unlike YEC, it's got nukes ;)
The problem with the whole "nature did it!" idea, which basically is saying that "if the climate change is natural and non man-made, then we shouldn't worry about it", is that the real problem with climate change is not who or what is at fault, but the effect this will have on humans and their societies. Worrying about the blame is mostly a waste of time and energy. Many, if not most humans, live very close to sea level in settlements (we call them "cities") which are located on rivers, oceans, ports/harbors, the mouths of rivers, etc., because waterways are very important to our economies and trade, and partly also because many of us happen to like living near water for various reasons (the fact that we're mostly made of saltwater probably has something to do with it).
If the climate changes and sea levels rise significantly, this will cause massive problems for humans, since in the last few hundred years, our population has expanded enormously and we've built a lot of large cities in coastal areas. Sure, we can exercise 20/20 hindsight and say "we shouldn't have done that", but what's done is done, and picking up and moving entire cities inland isn't a feasible prospect. On top of this, desertification is causing huge problems in places very far from oceans. So it'd make more sense to do what we can to stop or slow climate change. We don't have the technology to build giant city-sized domed habitats yet.
Rodinia did not break up into the continents we have now. Pangaea did. Rodinia was the supercontinent before Pangaea.
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
Hey this is Slashdot, without the car analogies, there would be no way for brain trusts like him/her to relate all their vast sums of knowledge to the rest of us drooling masses in a way we can relate to.
We are SO in their debt for enlightening us! Thank yew all...
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
I don't even think he would have to falsify evidence. If you take dinosaurs for instance, we assume a dinosaur bone is 250 million years old based on dating methods based on its chemistry and where it was located in rock strata, etc. If someone can simply create a bone, of the right material, and simply place it in the right place in the rock, then no one has lied about anything, they simply allowed you to be misled. Scientific theory would still be entirely valid for anything that resulted from natural processes, but it just so happened that a deity could replicate the products of a natural process perfectly and immediately.
Now the real question is: why allow us to become misled? And the answer could be anything.
Point is, what we call "lies" or "falsification" is because we assume that science will guarantee truth in all cases we apply it in a valid fashion. We essentially assume that if we are allowed to mislead ourselves, it is someone else who has lied to us. This is a reasonable thing to think, but doesn't represent the entire realm of actual possibilities. We only know that science *can* adequately explain dinosaur bones, but it doesn't actually teleport us there and then and allow us to verify it. And it doesn't prove that they actually got there via natural processes.
Okay, now to be fair, I think the reasoning that Creationism provides is more of wishful thinking based on an overreaction to the implications of evolution. It's also not very useful for science. God can do anything, but science is there for what we can do for ourselves. I see no reason to break a useful tool because they don't know how to use it.
without outside influence
It's called "the environment." You can find it all around you.
Jesus would NOT have slept on anything less than 400 thread count sheets!
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
It's a pretty poor picture in this video, but Futurama had a scene in one of its episodes on this topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxrxnPG05SU
Creationism is based on specific facts,
"My holy book says so" is not fact-based reasoning.
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum, nor would I attempt to try and talk you into accepting such an argument.
Why would you assume this is the basis of my reasoning? Oh, Yea, I get it, Anybody who would bring up obvious difficulties in what you believe has to be some religious book thumper so you can wave your hand and dismiss them.
I would suggest that you stick to your real arguments and skip this part.
Why would a creator insert broken copies of viral DNA into his creations? I've never heard a good creationist explanation for that.
Why is this a problem for you? Just to point out that where I may be a Creationist, that doesn't mean the mutation and natural selection processes are being debated here. Both processes can be observed. Keeping that in mind...
I would propose three possible ways to explain this. First a designer is free to reuse pieces and parts of past designs in new ones. Second, there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past. Third, finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
With the exception of the starting point implied by number 1, I don't see any difference between our views on this riddle you proposed.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
So in honor of the late Bill Hicks I have a question for you. A one-word question... ...Dinosaurs?
Oh wait those must have been put here to test our faith.
Wrong. Young Universe people were put here to test Evolutionist's faith.
Okey-dokey. You now have a hypothesis. Now... what are some things you would do to test it? Boring standard geology expects oil to form where (a) lots of plant matter gets buried, and (b) a hard layer of rock forms over it to trap the oil as it develops. Given known climate in the past (e.g. knowing where continents have drifted) we can make some predictions about the most likely spots to find such conditions. Ancient shallow deltas and such are among the best spots.
But if 'Flood geology' is right and the environment was better for vegetation all over, then that would imply that there'd be large deposits of buried vegetation in places where 'standard' geology wouldn't predict them. And thus large, unexpected deposits of oil. Go ahead, put your money into testing this hypothesis. If you're as sure as you claim, you'll have more money to give to the poor!
Ask a petroleum geologist and (former) young-Earth creationist.
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
I always liked the story of the woman in the flood. It goes something like this:
There was a big flood (probably from a hurricane), and this woman's town was completely flooded. She managed to get to the roof of her house, but the water was rising. The National Guard and others were out in boats, rescuing people off their rooftops. One boat came by, and the people yelled at her to get in, she said "no, I'm praying to God to rescue me." They left her, and a while later, another boat came by, again they said "the water's rising fast! You better get in!", and again she refused. Finally, the National Guard came by, as her roof was nearly underwater, and said "this is the last boat, everyone else has evacuated. If you don't come with us, you're going to drown." Again, she refused, saying "God will hear my prayers and rescue me." So they shook their heads and left. The waters rose, and she drowned. She went to heaven, and asked God, "why didn't you rescue me? I prayed and prayed." He responded, "I sent three boats for you! What more did you want?"
I propose a simple solution for schools:
Present three popular theories:
1. Evolutionary theory
2. Creation story from Genesis
3. Pastafarian story of creation
Since none can be proven with absolutely 100% certainty due to missing evidence, teach critical thinking and logic instead, and turn this into an exercise in debate, hand the students an unbiased guide (or really, a balanced guide with each section written by "experts" in each respective theory, giving each equal weight) containing empirical evidence of each of the three theories, then assign each debate team one of the three positions (whether or not the members of that team agree with the assigned position) and prepare arguments for and against each theory. I think that given evidence and proper training in critical thinking and logic, you are teaching students to examine the evidence, think the problem through and arrive at the correct conclusion, i.e., you are teaching people to think for themselves. I think this approach would make everyone happy - or at least any rational person should be satisfied. Tell the irrational fools who would get "offended" to STFU and deal with it. :-)
The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
When people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.
http://lesswrong.com/lw/mm/the_fallacy_of_gray/
*Still* negative function...
Except the reality is that the story stops at "she drowned". There is no god, and she didn't go to heaven. She merely ceased to exist as a living thing.
This is just the god of the gaps argument in disguise.
Not really. What I'm suggesting is Evolution science should take on the difficult questions posed by it's skeptics and not be dismissive just because there are alternate views. Perhaps the difficult questions are born of ignorance or misunderstanding. Perhaps they expose issues with the popular theory of the day. Perhaps the asking of the question will lead us to investigate further and discover something of importance. This is true for all sides of such debates. Nobody will know for sure if the question is not struggled with.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Reality does that, because science works. Science doesn't deal in opinions. You can have your own opinions, but you can't have your own facts.
This was targeted at the original author and his haughty attitude of omnipotent knowledge and superiority that he displayed.
Now, none of my content was targeted towards those who live under the influence of science, be it technology, knowledge, or curiosity. It was targeted at the scientists themselves, who have shown a trend of self invoked superiority. I hope this clarifies the scope and target of my discussion. Science has produced many solid pieces of information(but which are still open for failure, as all things are), and it has proven useful, to the point that I trust technology, a car, modern medicine, etc. to function. That was not my point at all, neither did I attack the intelligence of the scientific community as you claim. I attacked their misplaced self-confidence. This same self confidence leads some scientists to consider their theories as fact. They gain a sense of superiority, and condescend on any who disagree. This is the character of a child. I respect someone who holds their own work in a humble fashion. I abhor the proud. They cast a dark spot upon our culture, and the entirety of the human race.
show me fossils of some sort of MACRO evolution. i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard).
Well, that's going to be tough considering that frogs did not evolve into lizards. Their most common ancestor is a tetrapod. (ok, I'm being lazy, that's their shared superclass, it's below phylum and above class.) Frogs are OLD. Lizards are more closely related to humans than they are to frogs.
The wikipedia page of the evolution of fish, frogs, and lizards is a good place to start reading. It's kinda heady though, so maybe a primer on evolution would help.
But if you want some examples of macro evolution, let's say from fish to lizard, here you go:
Fish to Tetrapod is detailed nicely over here and tetrapod to lizard has a fair amount of evidence. Just, you know, scroll down and you'll see a progression. Sadly, the proto-frogs had soft bodies and didn't fossilize well, so it would take some actual work to show the evidence for that jump.
Anyway, hope this helps.
What else can you expect from a ministry:
ministry [mnstr] ...
n pl -tries
1. (Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms)
a. the profession or duties of a minister of religion
b. the performance of these duties
I don't believe science should be ministered.
- Holy crap, I've got MOD points! Who thought that was a good idea.
Because it explains the origin of Man, and since they believe Man was created wholesale in his present form, and the universe for his use, and is the only life that really matters to them, it contradicts a tenet of their faith.
A flat earth was a completely wrong conclusion that had been proven wrong long before it was theorized.
Both knowing the earth was spherical, and calculating it's circumference, as Eratosthenes did, was a significant step towards the correct conclusion that could only be proven through advances in technology: The earth bulges, but even then, it's surface is a complex texture.
So...how was this detour related to my response?
OK... I'll take the bait, but you are going to have to do two things or there is no point in this discussion. First, you need to pick some creationist claim of mine, THEN you are going to have to disprove it though observations. Choose wisely...
Ready.... Set..... Go!
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
The blood vessels are right behind in sensor in the "choroid". If you designed the eye so that it's nerves are behind the eye, then the eye has to have the blood infront which would be as good as a hemorrhage or detached which suffers from refresh issues from bright lights.
This site talks about it much more than I could:
http://creation.com/fibre-optics-in-eye-demolish-atheistic-bad-design-argument
and http://creation.com/mueller-cells-backwardly-wired-retina-v-dawkins
The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:
One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.
It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.
John 11-35
Adam and Eve did not have any kids BEFORE they were kicked out. They were supposed to be immortals living the two of them forever in Eden. Note that Adam and Eve were kicked out, not Adam, Eve and the kids.
So, how could god increase the woman's pain in childbirth if the only woman has never given birth?
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Logical statements can be proven 100% correct within a formal system. That's what I was talking about.
Belief without evidence is just stupid. Btw, my cat just farted a rainbow, can you believe? Do you want evidence? Tides go in, tides go out... I bet that wouldn't be of much use in court.
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
While I believe God created everything, from the observable evidence the universe and world is a lot older than 6000 years. Many stars and celestial objects are further than 6000 years away.
:)
Yes God could have created a many billion year old universe 6000 years ago or 5 seconds ago. But I see no benefit of arguing from that point of view. Creationism is not a core/mandatory part of Christianity and anyone who treats it as it is is a heretic. And Christians who go on and on about Creationism are distracting and even detracting from what Jesus cares and taught about. The Good News that Christians were commanded to spread certainly wasn't that the world was created 6000 years ago!
From what I see Jesus's normal style of creating things involved participation from others. Turning water to wine involved servants pouring water into jars. Feeding the thousands involved someone providing the bread and fish. Did Jesus really need water in the jars to fill them with wine? So why did he do things that way? He seems to like to get others involved. Which actually seems more consistent and makes more sense. An omnipotent God who didn't want others involved would have created a rather different universe. But instead we have this rather strange and peculiar universe where scientists still have difficulty explaining the very first observation they make (self/consciousness). That there is anything at all in the first place is also remarkable.
What I do also wonder is did the wine, bread and fish that Jesus created have age and history?
[and before anybody mentions Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, please note I didn't say *all* statements.]
`echo $[0x853204FA81]|tr 0-9 ionbsdeaml`@gmail.com
...yet.
checkmate.
Let's have the southern states decide what they awnt to teach in science all by themselves. that way we don't need to go abroad to find a third world country.
Asking good questions about someone else's position doesn't make your position any more right. You can poke holes all day in evolutionary theory and it'd still be way sounder than creationism, which by the way was the top scientific theory for thousands of years and never managed to explain a thing.
Ah.. Such is the lesson from history. As I recall, science once believed that the world was flat (with some help from the church). The question was not open for debate as the evidence was plane to see (pun intended). What was obviously flat, turned out to be just a very small slice of a very large sphere in the face of some observations coupled with some newly developed math. My point being, popular belief that a theory is true, even when we are talking about the science community, does not preclude the possibility that the popular view might be wrong. Asking difficult questions is really what science SHOULD be doing even if these questions fly in the face of what we think we "know" otherwise we can be guilty of the same stupidly that the "flat earth" lobby was.
So I disagree with your conclusion and choose so ask the difficult questions.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
If someone can simply create a bone, of the right material, and simply place it in the right place in the rock, then no one has lied about anything, they simply allowed you to be misled.
Seems like you're just playing games with definitions here. But you might want to double check the definitions before you try to get around them. Among the accepted definitions of a lie are "something intended or serving to convey a false impression" or "to create a false or misleading impression". Anyone allowing you to be misled can fairly and accurately be called a liar.
We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
NT
Wouldn't the more realistic scenario involve her yelling "Fuck yeah, I'm in heaven!! Who cares why I died!"?
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
"i want at least 3 fossils for each stage in the conversion for Critter A to Critter B (say from fish to frog to lizard)"
as an agnostic atheist, i dont think this is unreasonable in of itself.
I've met some of these nutjobs that revel in the mockery since they think it shows how they are being persecuted for their beliefs.
OK, I'll step up if you won't.. I accept natural selection as valid based on simple observations...
Your answer?
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum, nor would I attempt to try and talk you into accepting such an argument.
That is the basic reasoning of creationist. If you are a creationist, then that is your reasoning and denying is disingenuous.
Now, show credible scientific evidence a designer exists.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
of Christianities war on women.
I always hear these numb-brained ID types make a statement as dumb as this: "If evolution is real, then we should expect to find transitional forms in the fossil record." They typically go on to make false or ill informed declarations that no such fossils exists, or if they so, they do not demonstrate an adequate level of change to satisfy them (read: show me MACRO evolution.)
It's important to point out three very real things that may help them better understand their incredible stupidity:
1. First: No, we should not "expect" to find transitional forms in the fossil record. In fact, we should not expect to find fossils at all. They are a very rare occurrence that only develop under extraordinary circumstances. Remember 5th grade, when your teacher talked about how hard it is to make a fossil (i.e., animal or plant must die in medium suitable to preserve it, not be eaten or destroyed by other organisms, survive any number of other natural impediments to fossil creation/preservation both physical and chemical over hundreds and thousands of years, etc..) Fossils are not an expected product of life on Earth. They are a surprising and rare outcome. Second: transitional forms are less likely to survive and reproduce long enough to impact the fossil record in a substantial way, severely lowering any reasonable the expectation of actually finding them. (You IDers from AL should already know about sterile children from banging your siblings.) The absence of transitional forms only supports the natural law of evolution. See this for a nice illustration: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0
2. Despite the improbability of fossils, and the even smaller probability of finding "transitional forms" in the fossil record, they have been found and documented in striking numbers. You are simply ignorant of these facts, or choose to ignore the readily available evidence as simply not good enough to shake your faith... I mean "science," your own personal "science." My bad.
3. Fossils aren't the very best place to look for "transitional forms." The best place to look is in living organisms. The clear, unequivocal observation of MACRO evolution has been carefully preserved in laboratories for years now, particularly among bacteria. For example, E. Coli has and can easily be seen to evolve, at the MACRO level, into an entirely new species w/in 40K generations. These Petri dishes can and have been frozen and studied in detail - and they establish that evolution, even at the MACRO level, is an empirical fact, not a theory. Your problem isn't just with evolution - you really don't want to admit that bacteria are real animals undergoing real change. If you honestly believe this, however, why don't you abstain from vaccination? If you think evolution is a theory, test it out on yourself - refuse to inoculate yourself and your children. We look forward to your findings.
God once again illustrating his munificence and general niceness by punishing a bunch of complete innocents. Yay God. What a guy.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
as a side note explain how fossils Millions Of Years Old exist when the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced) in a fraction of time.
Please show a reputable geologic science article stating that "the continents themselves would have worn down (and been replaced)" in millions of years. And, please state and provide a link to the article that caused you to believe that statement.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
The interesting thing about the 'bad design' view is that it illustrates how evolution is historically contingent. Evolution can take what's already there and bend it, tweak it, etc, but it can't go back to the drawing board. Hence, we have nerves that take long pointless detours in the body, and we have a retina that's on backwards.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
is that that is about the only way to evolve an eye from the earlier models.
While we are at it, please provide proof of the validity of the bible and the existence of your god. I want at least 3 separate, scientifically valid pieces of evidence for each and every story in the bible and for your god and evidence for your god must be independent of the bible. Also, show your god evidence your god existed before time and personally created the universe, created this solar system, this planet, all things on this planet including humans, and by genetic testing prove that "Jesus" had no humanly father.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
That awesome feeling you get when you read an insightful and funny post by someone and you log in just to friend them. And you discover they're already your friend.
Brohoof.
I think you misunderstood the post. The post isn't saying that creationism is on the level of psychology. It is saying that one needs psychology to understand why people insist that something that is obviously make believe is real.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Obviously I'm talking about the anti-science religious here. They, in my opinion, are the undeserved proud that cast the dark pall upon our species while at the same time championing themselves as the light, imagining themselves to be the center of the universe and the very reason for its creation while at the same time proclaiming their humility. Imagine where we might be as a species today without the fearful spectre of religion having held us back throughout history.
I'm assuming that scientists to which you refer are the likes of Richard Dawkins, Lawrence Krauss, Neil deGrasse Tyson, etc. In them, I see not a lack of humility (indeed, what can be more humble than showing how you are NOT special, NOT the center of the universe, and espousing that you are NOT some supernatural deity's chosen purpose for the universe), but instead I see the character of an adult who is fed up with tolerating the ridiculous views and tantrums of the child that refuses to listen to reason. Creationism IS wrong, the entirety of the fields of biology, cosmology, geology, palentology, genetics and chemistry tell us so. The history of the world shows that until about 200 years ago, creationism was assumed to be right. Unfortunately, the evidence did not line up with this line of thinking and a new idea was formed that not only did make sense of the limited evidence available at the time, but has since made many predictions that have come to fruition.
You may disagree, but I believe that's something worthy of being proud of and is truly one of the brighter spots of human history.
kurzweil_freak
5th Kyu Genbukan Ninpo/KJJR student
Be the darkness that allows the light to shine.
As the holy book Strata by Terry Pratchett teaches us, the Universe is 70,000 years old and was made by an alien race from a different universe. The dinosaur skeletons and so on were added as a joke.
Now, disprove it. After all, it is written in a book so it must be true.
And all upgrades will be delivered through the new Species Upgrade Program called Evolution.
I think the South Koreans have really hit on something here and those of us in Kansas had the opportunity a while ago and dropped the ball... Creationism is just the tip of the iceberg - if people begin really believing this crap let's feed them the whole enchilada! They need to reject long distance travel because it will eventually lead to massive fatalities as ships and planes fly off into space as they reach the edge of the flat Earth. And Galileo and Copernicus were just wrong - the Earth is at the center of the universe and everything revolvles around us. There are millions if not billions of dollars to be made revising all of those nasty science textbooks that have been infecting the minds of our youth for far too long.
Science never believed the world was flat. That statement is completely preposterous. It shows such a fundamental lack of knowledge of history, science and mathematics as to place you as basically incompetent to discuss these issues.
Anyone with a decent knowledge of geometry can show the Earth is round, and in fact some Greek mathematicians actually measured the circumference fairly accurately, along with stuff like the tilt of the Earth's axis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes
Science was a much later invention than geometry.
You SERIOUSLY need to up your education level.
Ok, I see these creation vs. evolution stories all the time, and we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't?
You are right of course. Isn't it blatantly obvious that men would not have existed unless the cow Audhumla had licked us out of salty ice blocks.
For some, the waste disposal plant is an amusement park!
That is the basic reasoning of creationist. If you are a creationist, then that is your reasoning and denying is disingenuous.
Now, show credible scientific evidence a designer exists.
I disagree with you based on your premise. You think that just because my world view starts with a designer, it must be invalid. Of course I disagree with that.
So you go first... Show scientific evidence that there is no designer...
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Disregard Science, Acquire currency
we always assume the creationists are wrong, but what if they aren't?
I don't assume anything of the sort. Their arguments are weak, fallacious, and intellectually dishonest. If they were right they should be able to demonstrate that they are right to most rational people's satisfaction. The problem is that they don't have the facts on their side. There's no assuming going on from my point of view.
The bottom line is, creationists are not objectively assessing the evidence - they are starting with their conclusion because of their ideology, and attempting to retrofit facts into that, and indeed trying to hunt for anomalies to attack evolution. They've got everything backwards and they do not challenge their own beliefs. That is why I personally regard them as 'wrong'.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
My wife was once a loan officer specializing in non-profits. It certainly dulls your sense of religious-ness-sy as you see an endless sea of "clergymen" filing in day after day, from churches both large and small, talking about their "breakeven point" and "ROI" of their "operations".
There are a huge number of yeast infections in this county. Probably because we're downriver from the bread factory.
Classic 'god of the gaps' argument. Just because there are details still to be worked out in evolutionary theory (not that your example is necessarily one of these) does not mean that the abrahamic god is real. Creationists seem to think that by attacking evolution they prove creationism. A cute solipsistic point of view. Attacking evolution could just as easily mean "Zeus did it". They should set about trying to prove creationism is true rather than simply attack evolution.
Then if you consider the observed rate of mutation we currently see, the probabilities that such a complex system as even simple sexual reproduction just happens gets very very remote (arguably impossible).
Considering life has been around a good three and a half to four billion years, I'd say this 'arguably impossible' line of reasoning comes down to a failure of imagination more than anything else. We are talking about deep time here.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The mechanism of sexual reproduction started some 1.2 billion years ago in the Proterozoic Eon.
http://paleobiol.geoscienceworld.org/content/26/3/386.abstract
Sex is about exchange of genes. It DOESN'T require the simultaneous evolution of male and female or huge jumps in the structure of the organism. That concept is preposterous, in fact hilarious in it's naivete and lack of knowledge of basic biology.
Look at the sexual reproduction in plants - many reproduce sexually without having male and female types. Even the lowly yeast manages it.
I don't know where your information is coming from, but the ideas you are putting forward are ridiculous.
We know they are wrong based on observational science.
Yet their remains persistent and valid questions posed by folks that you "know" are wrong that cannot be answered.
Once you've explained exactly how not being able to answer every possible question about the details of evolution proves creationism to be true you'll have a hell of a point on your hands.
Cosmologists are still wrestling with big questions. Does this prove astrology right?
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The story itself is relevant here. First, the publishers appear to have voluntarily removed references to evolution when just presented with a petition from the ministry of education. So it sounds a lot like the are avoiding controversy. Second, they are removing details about horse and archaeopteryx evolution, rather than denying that this happened they just won't present the evidence that it did happen. They're hiding the evidence in other words, something that is very strongly opposed to Christian morality.
I'm perfectly comfortable with people having faith of this kind, as long as they admit freely "there is no evidence for this, I choose to believe it". The problems start when people start denigrating secular institutions (e.g. science) for not tiptoeing around their cherished beliefs. I respect that you don't use the 'god made the universe to *look* as if it's old' argument, as it's incredibly weak and silly, and I imagine most people of a religious persuasion would not prefer to believe in a creator that is so keen to deceive us into damnation.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Hard for _you_ to explain is not the same as being hard to explain. We have existing living species today that have primitive reproductive methods, we have species that can change sexes, and so forth. There are links in the chain.
The typical response of a creationist is to demand extraordinary levels of evidence especially when challenged about their lack of evidence. Anthropogically we know where different peoples lived based on artifacts. We can document generally where the Hebrews lived in ancient Egypt based on buried buildings, pottery etc. But to use your level of proof, I could demand the names and addresses of every single Jew complete with family history and skeletal remains or I contend that the Bible is lying that Jews lived in ancient Egypt.
Second of all, the fossil record has many, many specimens that support macro evolution. There are gaps but the general premise is sound. I suspect that you have never actually researched this.
Excellent point, I'll remember this one. Again you see the implicit assumption among creationists that somehow attacking evolution makes the bible true. Sorry it just doesn't fly. Even if evolution were wrong (it certainly isn't) that would still leave creationism as a load of incoherent babble authored by some bronze age goat herders.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Most creationist museums or "research" institutes spend a lot of time on this young earth notion. In other words they are less about finding the truth than about presenting a very specific set of concepts and then finding data to support it. If they really and honestly were institutes devoted to discovering evidence and ideas about creationism then they'd be including creation stories from many different religions and cultures. Where is the creationist institute that talks about how Raven created the world, or how Ymir created man and woman from armpit sweat, or creation stories that don't depend on young earth? No, they present young earth idea because a literal reading of the Bible plus some monk's ancient calculations requires that the earth not be older then 6000 years or so; young earth is explicitly a very literalist Christian idea.
It is still an obvious flaw, that did not occur in the octopus.
Either this designer is dumb, or mean, you decide.
Seriously. I'm sick and tired of all the lies laid down in Biology. It's fine to have a theory, but to reject a creator on the basis of an idea that can't be proven, is at best, hypocritical. The same people who blindly follow evolution and the assoicated theological beliefs, cannot be made to believe that evolution cannot be truely proven. Granted, Darwinian evolution shows some evidence for it, but it is fundamentally impossible to prove that creatures started as bacteria, and evolved, thanks to the Omphalos hypothesis. When you add to this vat Ernst Haeckel and his fraudulent diagrams (Which, I might add, we're still used in my highschool's textbooks a few years back), I don't know how this farce has lasted so long. It's fine to teach it, just like I was taught multiple theories for the formation of the moon, but that doesn't make it the end-all answer to life.
Expecting Nerdrage and Long Rebuttals,
A Young Earth Creationist, Slashdotter.
cDesign Proponentists
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Because most people are stupid and superstitious. As soon as they can't explain something, the "God" card is drawn to explain it.
It makes those stupid folks feel more comfortable.
Using the brain hurts some people. Too much of a fuss. Too difficult. Sometimes even not possible.
Two random mutations do not have to evolve at the exact same time to produce a male and a female...
There are plenty of animals that are capable of reproducing sexually AND asexually (In fact many lower mammals are capable of this). It turns out that sexual reproduction has many advantages however in a pinch there are plenty of Multi-celled lifeforms that can reproduce entirely on their own. Maybe the fact that you limited your viewpoint strictly to the farm is the problem.
Whats your next argument?
It's also a country where human trafficking and slave trade is essentially legal.
Evolution gets used as a catch-all term. Once you abandon the idea that everything was made exactly as is by a micro-managing watch maker, then origin of the species opens the door to broader ideas. You take a step towards the hands-off watch maker, then a step towards the set-it-in-motion watch maker, and so forth. "Evolution" is used both as a short hand by those who reject the idea of the origin of species or big bang, as well as a term used by many scientists as a short hand for the whole process of both the creation of new life and new species.
LOL.
IF we (the milky way I suppose) are the centre of the universe, (hilarious), please explain the filament structure, the local supercluster, please explain the Great Attractor, uh, oh and why M31 and our galaxy are about to merge (blueshift!). Or what about Barnard's star? IF we are the centre AND the universe is expanding. there would be no blueshift. But there is.
Fact is, we are NOT the centre of the universe. The antropcentric/heliocentric approach is medieval and simply wrong. We are nothing special. Not at all. Stop being a kid.
There are only two possible answers to the question of how life arose: either God created heaven and earth and everything in it, or life arose spontaneously from non-life. If life cannot arise from non-life, then evolution could not have happened because there would never have been anything to evolve. Abiogenesis is absolutely essential to the Theory of Evolution and yet we know for certainty it never happened. Evolutionists do not hold to evolution because of any scientific evidence for it. They hold to evolution because they would otherwise be forced to acknowledge that God created them and will hold them responsible for their actions and they do not want to be accountable to God.
You mention mutation of bacteria and viruses. Evolution requires the acquiring of new information to move from supposedly simple life forms to more complex life forms and yet it has never been observed that new information was gained through mutations. Every instance of mutation known to man has involved the loss of information and a restriction on the organism. Such mutations may make a virus or bacteria invulnerable to a certain drug or class of drugs and able to reproduce in that environment but also introduces an inherent disadvantage when the drug or drug class is not in their environment.
you should hear some of the crazy shit the believe!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_belief
My God can beat up your God. Just kidding...don't take offense. I know there's no God.
Ok, so what are your facts? You still havnt told us what they are.
Here is a rundown of your proposed explanations
1. God put junk code in our DNA for no good reason. It doesn't do anything, its just there.
2. God caused the exact same viral interaction to occur in all life at the same time including animals.
3. Im not really sure what you were going for in this explanation, but Im guessing you think that its just a coincidence that we found this specific sequence (and by sequence I mean the exact same sequence of thousands of base pairs) of DNA across thousands of species.
Science is about disprovability. There is no possible experiment that can disprove creationism, while there are plenty that could disprove evolution. For instance, if a fossil was found in the wrong era, or if a cow was found that was genetically identical to a pig, then current theories would have to be set aside. This is the difference between creationism and evolution.
it is full of contradictions. Unless you put logic aside it can't be proven 100% correct even if god itself showed evidence.
It is only full of contradictions IF you put logic aside.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Looking around the barnyard, off hand I see two major reproductive methods that are hard to explain how they come about using the theory of evolution.
Just because you personally can't come up with an explanation doesn't mean there is one. This is the same reason why people turned to the Gods to explain thunder and lighting since they had no idea about electrons and sonic booms.
For the example, I can easily give a hypothesis that egg birth evolved first, and then live birth evolved from that. We even have some intermediate "link" creatures alive today, such as egg-laying mammals like the platypus; and marsupials like kangaroos, which give birth to fetus-like babies and incubate them in a pouch. So I can draw a gradient between egg laying and live birth where at each stage, the creature lays less and less of an egg and more and more of a live creature. No God needed. Now I just need to see if the evidence out there supports it. At this point though, it doesn't really matter if what I said is how it *really* happened... the point is just because *you* can't think of an explanation doesn't mean there isn't one.
Seems that this implies pretty long odds.
At the kind of time scales and trials involved with evolution scales we're talking about, long odds mean nothing. Consider a hypothetical die with a billion sides. Odds of rolling a 1 are 1:10^9... not very probable. But evolution is like rolling that die a billion times a year for a billion years. Now it's very probable at the end of that time, you've rolled 1 at least once (probably actually a billion times on average).
Obviously somebody took the time to design the parts, manufacturer the parts and assemble them because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created.
It's very ironic that you point to the Model-T in support of a creator. The Model T wasn't just "created" out of thin air. The Model-T cam after the the Model-N, which came after the Model-F, which came after the Model-C, which came after the Model-A, which came after the Quadricycle, which came after the first internal combustion engine, which came after the first steam engine, which came after the first horse drawn carriage, which came after the invention of the wheel....... etc. Henry Ford didn't say "Let there be Model-T!" and there it was. He took the next step (evolved, if you will) in centuries of human engineering.
because we all understand that Model-T's just don't happen, they are created. So why is it not a good argument for one fundamental part of a complex thing we call life?
Because creationism is exactly arguing that life just "happened"! You seem to be confusing theories. Evolution is the theory that provides answers for how life was "manufactured," "assembled," "tested," and "quality controlled". The *only* thing creationism says is "It just happened."
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist, but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed.
This is not a problem for science. Science permits you to not have all the answers. For example, there are absolutely gaping holes in the Theory of Gravity, but I don't hear you questioning all the stuff we do have right.
Same reason we assume geocentrism to be wrong. Even though it seems like an obvious answer ("Look, the sun is going around us in the sky!"), there is simply no scientific evidence to support it's claims (and actually tons and tons of evidence disproving it).
This is a bad example. There is lots of evidence that the sun revolves around the Earth. We can see it day by day. It just so happens that that theory has some shortcomings that are explained better by the theory that the Earth revolves around the sun, for which there is also much evidence. And that theory has some shortcomings as well, which are better explained by the theory that ALL things are attracted to each other through the smallest of the universal forces and thus the Sun and the Earth revolve around each other. There is plenty of evidence for that as well. And yet even that theory doesn't quite explain everything and we will find (or maybe even already have) a theory which even more tightly explains the movements, but every theory will always just get more and more precise while never being exactly right.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Religion, being based on faith and not observation, cannot disprove science.
Religion cannot disprove science because science has it's own dogma, ie the Scientific Method.
However, occasionally, perhaps as little as a few hundred thousand times a year, something happens that cannot be explained by science as we know it. For example, somebody who was cancer ridden may suddenly and inexplicably be completely free of cancer cells. Invariably, rather than look into how we can cause this same thing to happen to other cancer sufferers, science turns a blind eye and says that is not possible according to science as we know it and looks no further into the matter.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
Which specific creationist view?
>The evolution myth is unproven philosophical story being push onto everyone as a sacred cow.
Wrong. It has been proven. Beyond doubt. Multiple times. Hard science. No philosophy. No myth. So superstition. Just pure naked data.
>How did the first rock turn itself into a self replicating system.
They don't and they haven't. Rock is inorganic material like SiO4.
But,... ORGANIC amino acids do indeed self replicate : http://cba.mit.edu/events/03.11.ASE/docs/Lee.pdf
(that's just one scientific article in an ocean of them)
That's the problem with you creationist. No clue whatsoever about physics or chemistry (or biology).
>Any evidence of any kind (phylum) changing into another kind.
One? The list is endless and spans 3.8 billions years.
Problem is : those changes are taking place in a span of millions or at least thousands of years.
One of the quickest change : the degrading of the wolf to the pet dog down to being a poodle or a yorkshire terrier.
But a horse will never become a cat.
However, both had the same ancestor. Some millions of years ago.
I suggest to read some basic Biology 101 before trying to ask questions here ever again.
> Any evidence of information gaining in the gnome
Yes. Easy. See Brown 2002; Saccone and Pesole 2003; Benfey and Protopapas 2004; Gibson and Muse 2004; Reese 2004; Gregory 2005
It's called horizontal gene transfer.
Book tip : Ryan Gregory. The Evolution of the Genome. Elsevier. ISBN 0-12-301463-8.
That is a false dichotomy. There is no conflict between science and creationism. Science is the search for knowledge, to know the truth. That God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in 6 days (creationism) should inspire the scientist to seek to know how the universe works. That is precisely why most all the science fields were founded by creationists. The theory of Evolution actually works against science. If we are nothing more then the random chance accidents then on basis can we know that we can know anything. Why would we be able to know and explore the laws of nature (actually the normal processes by which God maintains His creation) if our minds are merely the accidental interactions of chemicals. It is only because the Bible is true that we have the ability to conduct experiments and have any rational reason to believe we can learn anything from their results.
You mention that science requires repeatable, testable hypotheses. Yet nothing in the theory of evolution is testable and/or repeatable. We have never seen on kind of life form bring forth a different kind of life form: cats breed all the time and we have many different sub species of cats and yet they are all cats.
Your claim that evolution does not directly address the origin of life is false. For the theory of evolution to be true, abiogenesis must be true. But we know with certainty that non-life can never bring forth life.
So did you purposely miss the point of my post? I'm pointing to logical flaws in evolution theory using some pretty simple illustrations and you revert back to the old standby response? Intent on not trying to think this though eh?
I'm glad you are willing to admit that there are gaps in evolution theory too because that means I can accuse you of having the same gap in your details to be worked out.... But this line of argument is like throwing hand grenades at the test range, whole lot of noise, no real results.
So just how long does it take before a monkey typing on random keys can create even the Gettysburg address? Will it ever happen? The math of it says it won't, even if you take thousands of monkeys, or a million, or.. You get the picture.
I understand the LONG time frames involved, nay required, for evolution, but I dare say that even billions of years are NOT long enough for the theory. There is a whole lot of entropy involved in time frames usually discussed for evolution, but the observable fact that entropy is always increasing as things run down towards disorder is plain to see. So you have a two fold problem. You must create order out of disorder to get even the simplest virus AND you must imagine a path that coddles, fosters, and/or directs huge amounts of additional complexity to rise up in face of entropy's inevitable increase. The problem here is that we only have about 13 Billion years to work with since the big bang and most of those where taken up getting the universe into it's current form. When you look at earth, you have only about 5.billion years in total. I dare say that this is not long enough, then you consider that for a lot of that time, earth was not habitable by any known life and your time starts to slip away rapidly and the Evolutionist starts getting pretty tight on available time.
But the real funny thing (well I find it amusing anyway) is that some would accuse me of lacking imagination, and others would say I have too much of it if I believe in a creator... Imagine the monkeys hitting random keys on typewriters... How long did this take? Think about thermodynamics and the first four laws (zero though three) which are observable and provable, then try to violate them for millions of years, in order to get complex life, order out of disorder and consider who's using their imagination here. The net effect of thermodynamics on random chance is another observable fact. Disorder tends to increase, and no amount of time can bring order.
So, I think we are at least at a logical impasse. I hope you understand the shear impossibility of what evolution teaches but I doubt you will be swayed in your view. Further, your argument is not very persuasive for me because simply adding time does not make impossible random chances possible when you add in thermodynamics with chance.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
Pascal's wager has already been shown to be shit.
You hate your flawed eyes.
No, he doesn't.
He merely observes that if those eyes were "designed", then the designer did a shoddy job.
Especially since the eyes of the cephalopodes were already available for reference (according to both the evolutionary timeline estimates and the Genesis creation story).
You, on the other hand, tried to change the topic, re-frame the argument, introduce strawmen and conduct ad-hominem attacks.
Kindly bugger off.
The Roaming Gnome gains information every time he uses Travelocity to visit another country. We receive some of this information via postcards.
I have NOT used such an argument in this forum
The only arguments ceationists have are against evolution. There are no arguments *for* creationism, because your theory, by definition, is untestable. So until you provide an actual argument for creationsim we can only assume at a fundamental level you hold the common view, which is "because I said so."
Second, there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past.
Not sure what you're trying to say here. The article argues that a virus infected a developing organism and inserted itself into its DNA. That organism grew up and it turns out that the virus DNA did something beneficial for the organism, so it survived and procreated and perpetuated the virus DNA fragment. There are a couple key functional mechanism of evolution in that statement (natural selection, genetic mutation). You seem to be supporting evolution from your statement, not creationism.
finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
The human genome is 3.4 billion pairs, 8% of which is 272 million pairs, which means on average each fragment is 2720 pairs long. I believe directionality matters in DNA sequence, so this means there are 4^2720 possible sequences of DNA to match against.... that would be 4e1637 permutations. To give you a sense of scale, that's more permutations than there are atoms in the universe but 1500 orders of magnitude. So no, finding a small (2720 pairs) sequence of DNA that matches another found in a virus is not a likely at all. This is the kind of combinatorics that makes the DNA in every single creature on this planet unique.
He asked you to name a fact that supported creationism. You said "I accept natural selection as valid", which may or may not be a fact, but it isn't anything that supports creationism.
Look, if you want to take part in this type of debate, you need to be armed with the right tools. You believe (I assume, as you claim to be a creationist), that a Divine Entity created humans using His intelligence. A fact that supported that view would be, for instance, if we could talk to such a Divine Entity and he said that's how it went down (it wouldn't be proof, but it'd be a fact that could support your position). However there are no such facts and you have failed to provide any.
In my neck of woods - which is Russia - a lot of fuss was raised recently about the Patriarch of the Russian Orthodox Church wearing a platinum wristwatch that costs somewhere around $50k (cars that cheap are for wussies). He rides a Mercedes, too.
When the PR talking head representing them was asked about that, and how it meshes with the overall Christian message, he said that the Patriarch doesn't really want to wear expensive watches and ride expensive cars - he's an ascetic, wouldn't you believe that - but all these things are symbols of respect due to him from his flock, and the average people wouldn't see it any other way because they don't want to see their patriarch dress worse and drive cars cheaper than, say, the Pope.
I wonder if Catholic priests feed the same kind of crap to their faithful.
Given that Heaven is supposedly perfect, are you saying that the eternity of boredom devoid of variation is what awaits the faithful after they die?
What? I'm even okay with saying that you think observational science has given another method (evolution, not creation)... but saying that creation has been proven wrong by observational science? The only thing I can think of is that you're referring to earth age, not origins.
If you actually are saying that observational science has proven that God does not exist and God did not have a hand, in any way, in origins (i.e., no "creation" at all) and that the Big Bang has been proven as being indisputable fact... then I'd be interested to see that proof. Proof, not a balance of "well, it makes more sense..." or "the evidence seems to point ..." but actual proof, since you have stated that you know...
I'm not sure how having an actual lens makes for an inferior eye (the nautilus' eye has no lens). Unless you're talking about squids.
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Of course you disagree with it because it actually requires you to prove the existence of your imaginary designer for which there is no evidence. Like so many creationists, you abhor the burden of proof that lies upon you.
I have no burden of proof to show there is no designer because you are the one making the claim there is a designer. You make the claim, you get the burden of proof. By saying I must prove you wrong, you are showing your ignorance. Please explain why you should not have the basic burden of proof that falls upon all claimants.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
First, you need to pick some creationist claim of mine,
Of yours? Nice of you trying to rewrite history. You didn't make a claim for yourself, you made a claim for ALL of creationism. So, in that spirit, here's a list of a hell of a lot of creationist claims that have been debunked: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html I must have read through this list five times. I've also looked up the sources of information for some of them.
Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
I guess that's why he came to the Chosen People first.
Yes ... now watch them get some self-satisfaction for a moment because it is sort of like the hand of God bringing in DNA to kick start life ... except that the reason why it takes them a few moments before they get the unsatisfied look on their faces is because it all comes down to religion, and not just any religion, but THEIR religion.
They did not object to evolutionary theories on scientific grounds. That was never the case. It was always just a smoke screen because they could not fight it on social and legal grounds (evolution equals Nazism/Communism/Socialism etc ... and this nation was founded as a Christian nation, etc ...). Those fights were long lost, and they recognized that the losses were due to the increasing brand recognition of science. So now they must try to leverage the brand of science to fight this evolution thingy.
The fight has to eventually return to: Jesus died for our sins, the talking snake was real, Noah's flood really did kill everything not saved by the Ark, etc ...
Therefore, it cannot be little green men in a space ship planting DNA seeds. That would be completely unacceptable in the end, because their religion says so.
Problem here is that in order to make the jump from asexual to sexual reproduction it takes two independent mutations happening at the same time and location that produce a male and female before you get the transition
Eh, no actually, I'm no biologist, but many invertebrates are still hermaphrodites, so whatever chromosome swapping mechanism first appeared (by intention or accident whatever) only had to appear in one creature that split allowing its children to be able to reproduce with one another. Though many creatures now days can still fertilize themselves, so I would think it would be sometime before they discovered the happiness of sexual reproduction with others.
Much, much, much later did anything try having genders. I also suspect that sexual reproduction would have only occurred once, since it is a far greater mutagen than anything else around.
Seems that this implies pretty long odds. Then if you consider the observed rate of mutation we currently see
The only reason that I can accept that it took 2 billion years (again not a biologist what's the exact number?) for cells to start making whoopie is that is what the fossil record seems to say.
My point here is not to convince you that you should be a creationist,
Cool, cool, we can clearly debate this stuff for eons but eventually we will have to decide what to teach the kids. And I think students need the facts that biologists have discovered even if there may be some gaps in our understanding. Parents are welcome to fill in those gaps for their kids, but removing facts that make one particular non-scientific view point difficult to accept is imo the wrong way to educate.
but that there are problems raised by them that are not easily dismissed. You would do well to at least consider how best to answer the issues they raise.
This is a widespread misunderstanding creationists have of evolutionists. We have considered the issues as much as you have and came to different conclusions. Especially biologists, part of the reason they are so static-y about creationism is that they have investigated the origins of life far harder than the rest of us and are asked to repeatedly answer the same semi-educated trick questions that attempt to show their ignorance of some new (but long filled) hole in their thinking.
Evolution science should take on the difficult questions posed by it's skeptics
Two things:
1) Such as?
2) Cutting facts that would allow understanding of Evolutionary science from children's education is not going to help us "struggle with" the question.
"If' is shit. Bring EVIDENCE or fuck off.
"This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
Yes (if we assume the big bang needs a cause) and this gets at the heart of my point. What you say is logically true, but I was talking about belief, not the truth. Let's suppose that some theories about the origin of the Universe are more true than others, but let's further suppose that I have absolutely zero evidence for any theory one way or another. Under those conditions I would choose to disbelieve each theory just as much as I disbelieve another.
I wonder how your own personal religious experiences (people being healed and so on), causes you to have an opinion about the origin of the big bang? What's the connection?
Play Command HQ online
I don't know the connection. The experiences/seeing things has tipped me on the side of a Creator. The bible when I study it preaches a lot of truth to me, and when the Savior of the faith says the 2 greatest commandments are love God with everything and treat your neighbor as yourself, i mean even if your not religious the world would do a lot better if more people followed the 2nd. So my point is I believe in the Christian God.
From that stand point, Moses says God created everything, so the logical conclusion is he started the Big Band (and maybe throughout the ages, tweaked things here and there, like gave Humans souls as he saw our evolution had reached a point to commune with Him and have that relationship he wanted from free will, but that's just conjecture he may not have tweaked anything, who knows).
I see what your saying, since at this point in time, nothing can conclusively say what started the Big Bang (if as you say it needs a cause, still don't understand how it wouldn't TBH), you don't believe in any of the theories. I get that.
TY for responding helped me understand what you were saying.
Just a small correction:
It may be 100% true and correct. Every word, every letter of the Bible could be correct.
Nopz, it can't, because it is full of contradictions. Unless you put logic aside it can't be proven 100% correct even if god itself showed evidence.
Logic is the tool of the devil!
You are arguing a philosophical world view.
Your argument: "I believe there is no Supernatural creator that exists outside of the boundaries of the natural world."
You can only observe the natural world using tools designed to explore, evaluate and quantify the natural world (science and everything here is fine). You have concluded from this that is all there is and there can be nothing beyond. (philosophy)
Science can not explore anything outside of the natural world so demanding proof for the existence of a Supernatural creator that exists outside of the boundaries and confines of a natural world seems illogical to me.
The leap from "I observe the world in this way therefore there is nothing beyond my world" is I think the issue here. Could you please briefly explain to me how you came to this conclusion that there can exist nothing beyond the scope of what you can observe?
Not trying to stir you up just seeking to clarify the point that Science and a Naturalist world view are not one in the same thing
Given the constraints of mammalian bodies (head, four legs, etc.), how else would you do it? Where else would you put the "amusement park", where it can also serve as (its primary purpose) a reproductive function? Anything you do differently is likely to have other downsides.
Well, you apparently have yours firmly attached to your head. The downside is the obvious deficiency it has produced in your ability to reason.
I take offense at this remark.
I'm a university student studying biology, and we spent a lot of time discussing micro- vs. macroevolution, and the California salamander ring-species that demonstrates both. Perhaps creationists use the concept, but they are demonstrably not the only ones that find it a useful phenomenon.
I don't want to go collect signed affidavits from professors, but if I must...
It's not misunderstanding, it's a systematic campaign of misinformation. Creationist "scientists" deliberately conflate the two theories because evolution (somehow—how? NFI; ask them) attempts to disprove the existence of their given deity or deities. Because of this they see it as the first step of a slippery-slope that ultimately results in atheism, and they fight tooth and nail accordingly.
SO... What facts do you think creationism either gets wrong or ignores?
There are no creationist facts. Name one. Go ahead, I'll wait.
With facts on one side (science) and no facts on the other side (creationism), how do you expect to make a comparison?
I know before posting here that this is a pointless exercise, but I got curious...
Your argument is wrong. You cannot have science on one side and creationism on the other. How would you prove anything without science? You have set up an impossible task for creationists.
In reality, it is Evolution theory on one side, and creation theory on the other. BOTH share evidence from science (does science know anything about facts?) - the detail is in how you interpret the data.
Some think the data supports evolution, some think it supports creation. There are further areas where creation and evolution are not mutually exclusive - ie. they are as a whole, but creationism still supports micro evolution, and quite possibly natural selection as well.
Science says that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, but all the data is based on radioactive decay rates. One must assume they have always been constant, which is a fair assumption based on what we can observe, but an invalid assumption if you believe the Bible. Curiously, all of the matter in our solar system has the same age, including meteorites.
The differences between the theories are in the things we dont have proofs for, for example the origins of life. Evolution has theories on it, but they are either untestable, or not yet verified by science. If it is untestable, it doesn't belong in science (but I thought evolution WAS science? hmm). Most of creationism doesn't belong in science, but that doesn't mean you cannot have scientific evidence that supports the theory.
This argument gets a lot of hype and evolutionists are quick to jump to conclusions. I'll admit, looking at the data it is clear where the evolution theories come from. On the surface it is not a bad way to interpret the known data. However, we still don't know how much of the theory is true. To put it another way, like all models used in science, it is only true until evidence is found that refutes it. And then the model is changed to fit all existing evidence plus the new evidence, and on we go.
However, looking at the end result is not always enough to work out the cause, and the process.
Evolution and creation are both at odds with the evidence from time to time. The difference is that evolution can change the theory to suit the data, whereas creationism must explain the data to match the theory. See the difference? Evolution is a changing theory, not much of what was believed in 1900 is the same today - the theory has been modified a lot over time. In other words, the theory of evolution is itself constantly evolving.
This makes it an impossible target. You can prove part of it wrong one day, but in science that just means you come up with another theory, and onward you march, until the same happens again.
It is impossible to prove evolution wrong in that case. I've also highlighted the problems with trying to prove creation wrong too.
The goalposts get shifted on both sides, and have been for ages. One thing is clear though, the creation story has stood the test of time far longer than any theory of evolution. The fact that (some) scientists do still argue FOR creation even with the knowledge we have, is a testament to how incredible it is.
If you don't believe in the Bible, that is fine, but the alternative is to believe that some incredibly smart or incredibly lucky people wrote it.
Let's see what the theory of evolution looks like in 10 years.
This seemed like a reasonable sig at the time.
Probably because being religious requires rather significant levels of ignorance, which also results in partially intentional, partially ignorance induced limited understanding. Or would that be lack of understanding...
"Logical statements can be proven 100% correct within a formal system"
A human system or method of thought still depends on certain assumptions. Human logic works only within a humanly defined box of knowledge. Human logic says they can be no resurrection from the dead. Jesus was questioned about this. You can read about the question and his reply in Luke 20:27–40. This question was very logical, based upon their understanding of Jewish law as given by Moses. Jesus gave them an answer that was completely outside of their logical box. I like the last verse of his answer: Luke 20:40 And after that they did not dare ask Him anything.
A sufficiently advanced simulation is indistinguishable from reality.
15 Questions for Evolutionists
Evolution: the naturalistic origin of life and its diversity
(The General Theory of Evolution, as defined by the evolutionist Kerkut, does include the origin of life.)
by Don Batten
How did life originate? Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.”1 Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”.2 A minimal cell needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design? See: 15 loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life (Summary).
How did the DNA code originate? The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created? See: The genetic information code points to an intelligent source.
How could mutations—accidental copying mistakes (DNA ‘letters’ exchanged, deleted or added, genes duplicated, chromosome inversions, etc.)—create the huge volumes of information in the DNA of living things? How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins but also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See: Meta-information: An impossible conundrum for evolution. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate? See: The evolution train’s a-comin’ (Sorry, a-goin’—in the wrong direction).
Why is natural selection, a principle recognized by creationists, taught as ‘evolution’, as if it explains the origin of the diversity of life? By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution? See: Evolutionist Dr John Endler’s refreshing clarity about ‘natural selection’ has been largely ignored.
How did new biochemical pathways, which involve multiple enzymes working together in sequence, originate? Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30 at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence. Evolutionary
That is a false dichotomy. There is no conflict between science and creationism. Science is the search for knowledge, to know the truth. That God created the heavens and the earth and everything in them in 6 days (creationism) should inspire the scientist to seek to know how the universe works. That is precisely why most all the science fields were founded by creationists. The theory of Evolution actually works against science. If we are nothing more then the random chance accidents then on basis can we know that we can know anything. Why would we be able to know and explore the laws of nature (actually the normal processes by which God maintains His creation) if our minds are merely the accidental interactions of chemicals. It is only because the Bible is true that we have the ability to conduct experiments and have any rational reason to believe we can learn anything from their results.
This is epistemological bullshit, topped with a heaping of ignorance. You can believe whatever you like, but you cannot refer to the Bible as fact, in the face of all the evidence in cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, geology, palaeontology, and anthropology, and call it scientific. It perverts the meaning of the Bible and of science to do so. Either you accept the evidence at hand that the earth is old, and that life evolves, or you ignore it as you desire in favor of your beliefs but if you do, you are saying that the evidence at hand cannot be trusted, and that flies in the face of the philosophy of science - that the evidence that our senses presents to us is a true reflection of reality. You aren't just free to do so, you have a duty to say that, for you, the Bible as the word of God supersedes the physical evidence. I'm pretty sure Peter got in trouble for that kind of sin. You simply don't get your own facts.
You mention that science requires repeatable, testable hypotheses. Yet nothing in the theory of evolution is testable and/or repeatable. We have never seen on kind of life form bring forth a different kind of life form: cats breed all the time and we have many different sub species of cats and yet they are all cats.
The cat doesn't care that it's felis catus. Life isn't a series of buckets, it's a continuum. The names we give animals, the definition of speciation, everything about taxonomy is an invention, an artificial construct made by humans to classify life in manageable groupings. On the flip side, we have dogs that can no longer interbreed, and that's the end of the definition of species, right there. "micro" and "macro" are meaningless to the process of evolution.
Your claim that evolution does not directly address the origin of life is false. For the theory of evolution to be true, abiogenesis must be true. But we know with certainty that non-life can never bring forth life.
False and false. Evolution does not presuppose any particular theory of abiogenesis. Nothing. We could've started as pond scum, or microbes from Mars, or planted here by Star Trek's Preservers. Evolution would've occurred in exactly the same fashion. And nothing about abiogenesis requires supernatural intervention. "Creation requires a cause requires a mind" is more epistemological horseshit. A passing knowledge of Hawking radiation, the law of conservation of energy applied to the universe as a whole, and a little thought puts the lie to that. We are a product of, and a producer of, entropy.
Nor is it a priori true that non-life can never bring forth life. Chemistry leads to more chemistry leads to repeating patterns leads to structures leads to self reproducing structures leads to a metabolism leads to something resembling life. We've done parts of these things in the lab already. The devil, as they say, is in the details, and handwaving them as "God did it" is conflicting with science's search for knowledge.
You state these things w
The better end is where she went to hell and the devil answer "He sent four boats for you! You didn't take the last one going up either?"
How does one become convinced of the existence of omnipotent beings?
Typically by being raised that way, and also based on analogy (you find a watch in a desert, you assume a watchmaker made it). Evolution is the blind watchmaker, but it isn't an obvious theory and it's easier to think of some intelligent, supernatural force.
Why would anyone want to be?
A sense of purpose and a promise of life-after-death.
But instead we have this rather strange and peculiar universe where scientists still have difficulty explaining the very first observation they make (self/consciousness).
I don't see how "God did it" helps resolve these type of questions. The simple fact is that the brain is a machine, we understand a lot more than we used to, and we've even simulated some aspects of evolutionary behavior that we associate with feelings. As to getting a satisfactory answer of consciousness, it seems like one of those impenetrable questions, but science sheds more light than Hewbrew mythology (and the many "prophets" like Jesus that followed) on the matter.
Did Jesus really need water in the jars to fill them with wine? So why did he do things that way?
Because it's a legend/myth, that's why, no discernable from any other legend/myth. Typically stories like these arise out of a grain of truth, like maybe what little wine they had was watered down and shared. Seriously, who knows, it's just an unverifiable story. Jesus is better understood as a philosopher/activist/cult leader than a truly divine being.
Why do you write 'G-d' instead of 'God'? do you fear God? from your post, it seems you are atheist.
If you want to talk about bad design just look at all the numerous congenital defects that humanity and other species suffer from. If you want to argue about a creator designing stuff then why are these defects there? Consider every disgusting parasite or disease on the planet, and now explain why those were created.
Please explain the fossil and genetic record, which shows a clear path of evolution. Go ahead, look at your creation sites, but they are all bullshit arguments that have been debunked over and over again.
demanding proof for the existence of a Supernatural creator that exists outside of the boundaries and confines of a natural world seems illogical to me.
Russell's teapot:
Russell's teapot, sometimes called the celestial teapot or cosmic teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872–1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the Sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others to believe him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong.
First a designer is free to reuse pieces and parts of past designs in new ones.
Most of these viral copies have been completely deactivated over time via various mutations (not necessarily within the copy of virus DNA, but also in the regions around it), which is why we no longer suffer from effects of those viruses. In the chimp case, every copy of PtERV1 has been deactivated. So this is not a case of reuse, we are talking about extinct viruses that are present in both chimp and human DNA.
there has obviously been interactions between virus and other species that has occurred in the past.
So you are willing to accept that viruses can insert genes into DNA, and extract genes from DNA, and thus gene transfer occurs between species? And that genes become mutated over generations? Sounds a lot like evolution. But anyway, this still does not explain why chimps and humans have the same inactive viruses in the same places in their DNA...
Third, finding small sequences of DNA that match when you only have 4 building blocks is not so hard to imagine given that they are not claiming a full copy of the virus, only small fragments.
Actually, some of the copies are complete enough that the researchers have extracted the virus and resurrected the extinct virus. We are not talking about a few base pairs that happen to correspond between human and chimp DNA, we are talking about hundreds of copies of endogenous retroviruses (each ~500 base pairs long) occurring in the same place in human and chimp DNA. 40 out of the 42 viruses found in chimp DNA are also found in humans. The probability of that occurring by chance is infinitesimally small. The answer is either common descent, or that your designer deliberately put deactivated copies of the same viruses in the same places in both chimp and human DNA. Which brings me back to the question, if that is what you believe, then why would he do that? Why would an omnipotent creator put hundreds of the same copies of deactivated viruses into both chimp and human DNA?
Watch how South Korea's morality and productivity go up as they realize they're not intelligent monkeys but rather divinely created, purpose-built creations.
That would seriously piss me off. The human body is full of design flaws, and this guy knew about them but still went to market! You know what God, if you can't even be bothered to do a good job on your flagship creation, the supposed pinnacle of that week's worth a few thousand years ago, well, fuck you for not trying. Don't expect and praise from me.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Neither you or I were present at the moment of our conception to observe the fusion of the two gametes that eventually developed into us, yet I have a very high confidence that was the process involved. The fact that something occurred in the (unobservable to me) past does not prevent me from doing all sorts of tests of that hypothesis, the most obvious being genetic tests on my parents that would not only pass scientific scrutiny, but also pass scrutiny in a court of law if there was some question about it.
Merely because something happened in the past does not make it scientifically untestable. You look at the evidence that exists now, and test that against your hypothesis. It works for forensics. It works for geology and paleontology. The "scientifically untestable past" is a myth concocted by creation "scientists" who want to keep the past sufficiently fuzzy that they can claim their bogus theories have as much merit as the ones from conventional science. This also conveniently gets around the problem that many of those "creation science" ideas (e.g., a "young Earth" or a "global flood") have already been tested and falsified many times over.
The only "presuppositional research framework" you have to assume is that the laws of physics operated pretty much the same in the past as they do now, and even that is testable (and has been carefully tested in all sorts of ways: e.g., look up information on the Oklo natural nuclear reactor for example, which has implications for nuclear decay rates being stable to a very high precision).
All that demonstrates is the nature of sanity, i.e. that it is defined by the norm. Most people don't believe in little green men or faeries so anyone who does is nuts. Large numbers of people believe in God though, even though there is a similar lack of evidence or credible explanation, so that is perfectly normal and sane.
Apparently in South Korea a lot of people believe in fan death. In Japan it is widely believed that putting bottles of water outside your house will scare away small animals like cats and foxes when they see their own reflection. 3m Chinese drink their own urine, although there is some evidence that may actually work. In the US a lot of people believe in the creation myth. In the UK astrology is popular.
My point is that just because a large number of people in one country believe something stupid does not seem to suggest that the country as a whole is any less intelligent or any more superstitious.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Moral of the story? Even God uses science over magic, because it works?
Since the issue doesn't affect my daily life, I have no qualms. If it interfered with my daily tasks in some way, then I would question the validity of the problem.
Si. Contrary to the opinion of the moderator haunting my every post in a crusade of self justice(and completely missing the real content), this was in fact my troll post, one done in response to a rather terse and sarcastic post by h4rr4r. I decided to take the "superiority complex" path of conversation for the fun of it. It provided mild entertainment while I tested a rather lengthy Perl script I was developing. In contrast, the comment this moderator marked as trolling, was in fact a serious question of scientific integrity. He seems blind to that though... I must say, I prefer reddit discussions. Crowdsourced rating's provide a balance and objective conversation, not the weighted opinion-based voting system of slashdot. I shall resign to only reading the articles from this point forward.
Let me see if I can properly convey the concept in my head: If people are perfect, they would be identical copies with no flaws and no variations(because beauty would need to be a consistent level of perfection...i.e. identical). Post death, everything is perfect. For perfection to exist in everything, it must also exist in human emotion. This means a constant level of happiness is required, as this would satisfy the definition of perfection in everything. So, boredom would not exist. Since it is a non-human construct, Heaven can create whatever rules of existence that it wishes to, possibly changing a person's version of happiness to fit the situation. Since we are discussing an omnipotent being in this context, then his omnipotence allows him to define this as he wishes. Still, in the Bible, heaven is constructed as a place where there is perfection from sin, not perfection of the individual. The flaws and sickness issues of the human will be solved. Still discussing an omnipotent being here, so he can do as he wishes, such as re-write the laws of human emotion.
My mother used to manage a credit union in the '70s. A whole wave of Texans and Okies came up to Michigan to drill oil. They were living in company housing, driving company vehicles, and making $10/hr (when minimum was $2.35), but defaulting on their loans. When she'd work with them to create a family budget (a concept entirely foreign to any of them) and total their expenses she'd ask "How much do you give your church?" The reply was always, "You can't count that, that's God's money. He'll always give that back." Some of these idiots were tithing 20% or even more, but unable to understand where all their income went.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Since I was not raised on the theory of evolution, I have more of an inclination to question it than someone who has only been taught the theory of evolution. I do not disagree with the currently observed results of micro-evolution, but there are far less factual observations of macro-evolution and far more theoretical thought-experiment paths. I was discussing this with someone else. There is an article discussing a test run to see if atmospheric gas from long ago would produce something else if held under the same circumstances as earth: high hydrogen content, barren surface of rock, and a long period of UV exposure. The method to test this? Take a small container of gas with high hydrogen content, and bombard it with electricity for a short period of time. Seems to contradict the base tenants of science. For this kind of reason, I question this theory. You did call a fact a theory: "Evolutionary *theory* explains how this is so. To disagree with this *fact* in this day and age amounts to sheer willful ignorance, does it not?" Those two terms seem to be interchangeable in alot of scientific debates or articles I've seen to this day. Combining a fact with a theory, does not create a fact. All evidence has to be factual for something to be labeled as a fact. Even if a single portion of it is theoretical, it is to be called a theory.
I believe I was thinking of Richard Dawkins.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, while occasionally sarcastic, is actually well mannered whenever I have seen him speak or discuss.
Also, only the Westborough Baptist Church is proud and stupid enough to consider themselves God's chosen purpose for the universe. All the Christians I know, see themselves as servants, not chosen ones.
I am in the natural state, the state all people start off in. People are not born believing in fairy tales, myths, and gods. People pop up and say "You should believe this book of fairy tales about an invisible sky daddy is real or he will burn you forever in a lake of fire." To which I reply "Show me your evidence." Then, they do as you and the GPP have done "Prove I am wrong", "Why shouldn't you believe?". I see no reason to believe in something that has no evidence for and quite a bit of evidence against.
I came to the conclusion because there is no evidence of anything "beyond the scope of what you can observe". If one can not observe the supernatural and provide evidence of a god, why should one believe in either?
How did you come to the conclusion that there is a god? Where did you get the idea there was a god? Did it come from a bunch of bronze and earlier age fairy tales handed down orally for centuries? Where is your evidence of a god? Do you have any at all? Where, exactly, is the "garden of Eden"? Where are the remains of the "Tower of Bable" which was supposedly so huge?
Seriously, in order to claim knowledge of a thing then claim said thing is unknowable and undetectable is just idiocy.
There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
Creationists like to claim that evolution from simple to complex compounds is impossible because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but they obviously don't understand thermodynamics well. Entropy increases in the absence of other inputs of energy. Look up in the sky. See that big ball of nuclear fusion about 8 light minutes away? That throws your entire thermodynamics argument in the toilet. The miniscule percentage of that energy intercepted by Earth is more than enough to create any complex hydrocarbon assemblage imaginable (and probably a lot of them we can't imagine yet.)
Time doesn't seem to be an issue. There is evidence for life on Earth within just a couple hundred million years of the Great Bombardment tapering off. Unicellular life was predominant for billions of years, simple cellular fission, then some cells started swapping DNA (still happens in protozoa and bacteria). The process was so useful for rapid adaptation to changing environments that it spread and developed. Spores developed in organisms which were subject to drying. Multicellular life was developing simultaneously, and spore clustering created colonies (still happens in hydras). Spores started swapping DNA (still happens in yeasts). The invention of sex took three billion years, the most primitive versions of it (no male or female divisions, only two haploid cells) are still out there in a number of different species. The exact details of what happened when and where are subject to debate, but no old white bearded guy in the sky waving magic wands is necessary to explain the origin of the process. Chemistry tries every combination that it has energy and raw materials for, we just happen to be one of the more complex ones in the neighborhood.
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Actually the Model A came after the Model T. No one seems to remember why Henry Ford chose those designations, only that when he was asked about offering their products in different colors like the competition did he said, "They can buy a Ford in any color they want, as long as they want black."
I know far too much trivia . . .
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Who created your designer?
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Actually there were two Model As. This is the one I'm referring to. Some more trivia for you ;)
Your argument seems to boil down to "God is omnipotent, so he can redefine boredom, and specifically make it so that we aren't bored by perfection". If so, then this gets us right back to OP - surely an intelligent designer could design a perfect word, and also design us to be able to experience that perfect world without boredom?
A way to make Kim Jong-eun look good.
S. Korea: "I found it! "
You are so funny! Better to delude yourself that you are SPECIAL rather than just another slightly more evolved, story-telling chimp - Pan Narans as opposed to Pan paniscus and Pan troglodytes. Enjoy your dreams!
Just a comment on Intelligent design: you are looking at the human eye at a time when it is work in progress. Its not fair to say that the architect is an idiot before you see the end result. In a changing environment, the result will never be final.
You are making a huge assumption that you need facts to prove/disprove an idea. I learnt recently that feelings are just as important as facts.
Once again you are assuming that we need facts and reason to prove/disprove a claim. Feelings and here say is proof lol
Religion, being based on faith and not observation, cannot disprove science.
Religion cannot disprove science because science has it's own dogma, ie the Scientific Method.
However, occasionally, perhaps as little as a few hundred thousand times a year, something happens that isn't currently explained by science as we know it. For example, somebody who was cancer ridden may suddenly and inexplicably be completely free of cancer cells.
FTFY.
Invariably, rather than look into how we can cause this same thing to happen to other cancer sufferers, science turns a blind eye and says that is not possible according to science as we know it and looks no further into the matter.
This is pure ignorance.
There are only two possible answers to the question of how life arose:
No. There really aren't.
When you see a car smashed to pieces on the side of the road do you think that Ford designed their car to look like that?
Smashed car from google
From the christian view we live in a fallen world now, God created the Earth to be very good, but it is not good anymore.
Parasites, baterias, (even viruses?) can provide beneficial services to a host (e.g. humans need baterias in our guts.)
Once the curse has happen, degeneration starts to occur (a photocopy of a copy of a copy is always worst compared to the original). So once a virus, bateria, fungus, etc had a useful perpose, they many currently dont serve the original design but can only do what the degraded form allows them.
The fossils show a clear example of creation. Every kind (phylum) shows up in the fossil record perfectly without intermediates. There are no half trilobyte to bateria, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptile, reptiles to dinosour. The 55 kinds of dinosours (out of over a 1000 species) all appear fully formed. Dinosours to Birds. Archaeopteryx is a perching bird (a strange bird with teeth but still fully a bird). Monkeys to Humans, want me to list the number of hoaxs over the years? Neanderthal Man, Peeking Man, Java Man (Now called Homo Erectus), Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Cro magnon man, Lucy.
If evolution is true, we would expect to see millions of transitional fossils in the record, yet we dont any linking between the major phylum.
Do you know about all the hoaxs of what I just listed above for humans? Tell me which one you came from :-)
Cheers
Chris
John 11-35
Thomas Merton.
I bought this house and you know I'm boss
Ain't no h'aint gonna run me off
Qualifications: I'm an academic here at a university in South Korea and also got my post-graduate degree here. I've been here for 10 years now. My major is Asian Studies (fwiw).
This is not surprising in the least. (South) Korea is a *very* Christian country underneath its modern veneer: it was one of the very few success stories that the European missionaries had in East Asia. (Ricci et. al. had basically come to an academic/intellectual impasse with the Chinese while trying to introduce their religion, while the Japanese either chased the missionaries away or cut their heads off—an effective deterrent.) Christian missionaries came rather later to Korea (Choseon) but found that their religion was "compatible" to a degree with Korean society's in-built sense of post-Confucianist conservatism and community, and therefore it slotted in well with Korean (Choseon) world-view at the time. Christianity had a *huge* impact on Korea(s) history in the 19th and 20th centuries.
Fast-forward and we now have the most Christian county in East Asia. South Korea is now the world's second largest source, after The USA, of 'foreign' missionaries. The passing of the above textbook guidelines is, unfortunately, not surprising in the least: the Christian lobby here in South Korea has a very powerful grip on politics, in particular on the ruling conservative Saenuri Party who are very dependent on their very conservative (and rural) electorate.
An interesting factoid: unlike other places in the world (?) it is not the Catholics who are the aggressive, "fire-and-brimstone" Bible-bashing Christians here in Korea, it's actually the Presbyterians (Protestants). The Catholics here (the minority) are actually quite laid-back, as I have experienced.
The order of creation as given in Genesis agrees with the fossil record.
Please note: I beleive Evolution is correct, but you probably should listen to both sides of the argument before throwing out challenges.
There are a lot of 'creationist' facts, but most of them revolve around things which you probably haven't heard of as you probably haven't had a look. The reason the evolution of the horse was most likely taken out of the text book, is because almost all the horse fossils we have were found pretty much at the same strata level (ie they co-existed), and the creationist view of that fact is that they are like different species of dog. A geologist friend of mine was pretty adamant about this fact (its something he learned as part of his degree apparently).
For instance, if you were to dig up a jack russell, a terrier, a great dane an irish wolf hound and a bulldog all on the same level, you wouldn't put them in order of size and then claim to trace an evolution from the jack russell to the great dane with the other dogs in between. But apparently this is what paleontologists have done with the horse. There is a belief amongst evolutionists, that even though these might be different species, they have a common ancestor, and all that really matters is that one day they'll dig up enough fossils to fill in the gaps to prove that horse type A did exist before horse type B, which both existed before horse type C etc and other fossils will come along to show that there was a horse type D that provides a better link between horse A and horse C and that horse B was actually a dead end (because there are bits of the horse fossil records that suggest that some traits went backwards in the horse, such as the development of the hoof - creationists leap on that fact. But, another belief is that the hoof didn't go backwards, but that the fossils that have the different types of foot apendage were dead ends).
The real problem is that when people try to pass off the horse record as one continuous line, from one horse to another (as a lot of books do), it gives creationists fuel. They are able to use facts, like the horse fossils all existing at the same time, and as such different species, as a supposed 'refutation' or evolution.
Which now gives you two creationist 'facts'. 1. Genesis and the fossil record agreeing in the order of creation, and 2. horse fossils being found at the same strata level and not having a definite line of horse A to horse B etc as the science text books teach.
Creationists leap all over facts like the horse record (they have more as well). Though many of us can see that the issue is an incomplete fossil record, it comes across as 'lies' told to push evolution. Thus, something that is a fact (like the horse fossil record) ends up becoming a 'creationist fact' when they can use it to attack evolution. The real issue is that more rigour needs to be used to sort out these inconsistencies before they end up in text books.
omg, sounds like a boring place. send me to hell :)
After we die there is nothing, but i guess god botherers can't accept that
This is the downside of all those American missionaries plaguing other countries. While driving through Busan at night recently, I was struck by the multitude of lit up crosses indicating the presence of a Christian church. Clearly the looney side of American Christianity is being liberally spread over these innocent Asian cultures and it is sad to see that, being carried with it, is medieval ignorance about science.
Korea: The Choson People
The very definition of perversion!
"more evolved" isn't a scientific concept, because it implies a direction to evolution.
good point - evolution doesn't follow the laws of geometry? :-)
This was an interesting new creationist argument for me. On the face of it, you make a valid point - the possibility of concurrent evolution of the independent elements required for sexual reproduction seems vanishingly small. If this is the position that the scientific community is taking to explain sexual reproduction, that would be enough for me to reconsider my strong support for evolution and the scientific method.
So I did some reading on it.
Turns out that there are some competing hypotheses on the issue, but none of them proposes anything like what you've described.
You say that there are problems with evolution and we should try to address them. Then you present the problem of independent evolution of sexual pairs. But that isn't actually a problem with evolution at all, because no evolutionary scientist is proposing that that is what happened.
If you even read just the wikipedia article on the evolution of sexual reproduction (you did at least that much before you presented this argument, right?), I have no idea how you came to the conclusion you've presented.
I absolutely agree with you that if there are problems with the theory of evolution, we should not dismiss them, but rather seek to answer them. Can I suggest in turn that if you are going to present such problems, that you at least first at least inform yourself on the matter to the bare minimum standard of just reading the wikipedia article on the subject?
The quote may be true, but the context you present isn't. In the first years of production from 1908 to 1914, the Model T was not available in black, but rather only grey, green, blue, and red.
From the christian view we live in a fallen world now, God created the Earth to be very good, but it is not good anymore.
That's ancient Hebrew mythology, where you'll also find ridiculous stories such as Noah's Arc and Eve being created out of a rib from Adam. And even if you want to believe in such fairy tales, I question worshipping a god that let's babies and children suffer in extreme agony because of some slight that happened hundreds of generations ago.
So once a virus, bateria, fungus, etc had a useful perpose, they many currently dont serve the original design but can only do what the degraded form allows them.
In other words, they evolved to be efficient parasites.
The fossils show a clear example of creation. Every kind (phylum) shows up in the fossil record perfectly without intermediates.
What creationists have done is to demand evermore fine-grained transitional fossils. The number we have already is large, and it shows a clear path of evolution, from single cells to the complex organisms you see today.
Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it. Yet the path through time and the progression of species is so self-evident at this point you have to be willfully blind to ignore it.
What we really have is NOT a scientific debate about facts, but a debate over differing world views. You want proof by facts, but you have already dismissed the premise so what's the point? There is plenty of evidence, but if you have already decided not to objectively look at it so this whole discussion is a waste of time.
Consider the complexity of existing life, the extremely narrow environmental window which is required for this life to continue. You see a lucky chance and/or happy accident. I find it logically impossible for this to have just happened, given basic scientific facts from thermodynamics, mathematical probabilities and other commonly accepted facts. There are just too many things that had to be "just right" or none of this would be possible. Just a lucky chance? Mathematically impossible, just like the monkey/Typewriter thought experiment turns out to be.
Because you reject the foundational world view that offers a logical solution to this issue, you are forced to accept such difficulties in your theory, defensible or not. Further, because of the implications of even considering that there might be a creator, you are left with no choice but to do what you can to defend the indefensible, even if you have to ignore standard scientific facts to do so.
So, from my perspective, it is not I who has an issue with scientific facts. Unlike many creationists, I will admit to difficulties in having a scientific debate about the background world view of a creationist, but this is because they are NOT scientific questions. However, I find few ardent Evolutionists, bent on dismissing creationism to be honest thinkers who are ready to admit the difficulties of their view, and even fewer who can demonstrate that they've actually considered the evidence presented. You are not in either of these groups so I strongly suggest you think about the REAL questions you have, not these logical straw men.
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
I take Genesis to be a observational record not mythology. Noah's arc is the most stable designed for a vessel in water, it's so good that the dimensions are used by super tankers. The Arc was a super tanker.
Are you aware that the lower rib of a Human is the only bone in the body that will regrow back if it is removed proving the protected sheet around the bone isn't destroyed. The concept of God putting to sleep Adam gave the idea to the man who invented anesthesia.
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene. Soon Man will be able to do that.
Yet you think God who is much more advanced and made Adam (think star trek transporter beam) and so has the blueprints already is unscientific???
Also on a theological response, by making Eve from Adam, no one can say females are not humans. People would of tried that if they could.
Define the word evolved please.
- Do you mean that it is changing? Creationist believe that happens. Natural Selection, Mutations & Gene duplication attest to that.
- Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?
The word Evolution has several different meanings and some of the meanings creationists agree with, and some others we do not. We creationist agree only that which operation science can prove. Of course once one of the bacteria changes are observed then you will say that is evolution of another type of change. That is the classic Fallacies of Ambiguity. Hence I ask what type of change are you referring too? because in the above example, they are devolving from a functional state to a less functional state. The opposite of the grand theory of evolution. (sometimes the devolving can be an advantage but it does not show evolution)
Is it wrong to point out the major holes in the evidence you proclaim to support your views, do not exist?
We are not talking about fossils inbetween species here, We are talking between 2 totally different creatures.
These things lived from 100s of millions of years, we would have millions of these fossils yet there is linking between the phylum.
As Charles himself said which is still true to this day:
Could you clearify what you mean by
Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it
Of course the Bible will say that didn't happen because evolution is a made up story, it didn't happen. Operation Science says it can't happen. The fossil record doesn't say it happen despite how much you pray it does.
Where are the links between these phylum? If it is so clear to you, (but not the experts) show me the transition fossil showing the half bird half dino, half reptile half tutose (showing the ribs being inverted to match), half whale half Pakicetus.
These are basic questions and if you declare this story to be correct, then you can show it in the fossil record. Yet the record only shows fully show creatures and not transitional between the phylum.
As a basic question, tell me how did the first cell came about
John 11-35
I take Genesis to be a observational record not mythology.
That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith, where no matter how untenable the position you have to come up with some twisted way to retain your belief.
Noah's arc is the most stable designed for a vessel in water, it's so good that the dimensions are used by super tankers.
Your appeal to modernity doesn't address the obvious issues that anybody with a modern understanding of the world (or even a primitive one) could come up with even a tiny bit of thought, like how Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place, how it is that they didn't eat each other, or how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record. Wikipedia has a good writeup.
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.
What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.
Define the word evolved please. Do you mean that it is changing? Creationist believe that happens. Natural Selection, Mutations & Gene duplication attest to that.
They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?
Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?
You just said it earlier, and now you dismiss it as impossible. I'm confused by your logic.
Where are the links between these phylum? If it is so clear to you, (but not the experts) show me the transition fossil showing the half bird half dino, half reptile half tutose (showing the ribs being inverted to match), half whale half Pakicetus.
It's funny, you see a bird with teeth and you say "still a bird", and if you see a dinosaur with feathers you will say "still a dinosaur". What you want is every link to be filled in, ad infinitum, while ignoring the clear progression of the fossils we do have.
Gould said: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
Gould's position was one of "punctuated equilibrium", in that species would undergo rapid evolution and then remain fairly static.
Could you clearify what you mean by "Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it"
You mention cells later on. What does the Bible say about them? Why does the fossil record show a progression from single cells, to multicellular, to plants, and to animals? Why does modern man arrive so late on the scene? Why can we find other human-like species before man came around? Why do we share so much genetic information with chimpanzees?
Is it wrong to point out the major holes in the evidence you proclaim to support your views, do not exist?
There's nothing wrong with it, but it is wrong to ignore the evidence which does exist, and it does not support your childish creation myth.
As a basic question, tell me how did the first cell came about?
No astronomer documented seeing a star being "born" much less duplicated the process, yet evolutionists claim to know the process. The conclusion drawn on "evidence" for evolution is flawed since radio carbon analysis depends on a steady rate of decay. An intact mammoth fossil was discovered, and RCA indicated 17,000 year old front legs and 40,000 year old rear legs. Consider that between the years 1999 and 2002, scientists not only halted photons, as well as accerated photons to 300 times the speed of light. What does this mean forC in E=MC^2?
I know Jesus the Nazarene created all that we see when we gaze at the sky at night. We have the record of witnesses of Him on earth, and the miracles He performed. I love life!
Evolutionists loves death - natural selection. They seek answers in death.
Proverbs 8:36
âoeBut he who sins against me injures himself; All those who hate me love death.â
I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.
Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.
It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.
There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins
The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia
Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.
Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bib
John 11-35
1. God put junk code in our DNA for no good reason. It doesn't do anything, its just there.
This is a bald assertion on your part. Our understanding is far from complete. How do you know it doesn't do anything? 200 years ago there were many of structures in the human body to which science could assign no function. Today that is no longer the case. How do you know the same is not true of "Junk" DNA?
Ironic, isn't it. A scientist assuming a designer will look at junk DNA and say, "Is there a function here that I don't know about?" A scientist assuming no designer will not even bother to look, since it's just "junk".
The thing is the science has been discussed, evolutionary theory has been up for peer review for 150 years. Virtually every creationist arguement ever posed is either untestable, or outright debunked. Any claim you can find on the creationist side, is almost certainly going to be on this list. http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html An explanation that can't be tested, and contains no predictive capabilities is useless scientifically. Science is about figuring out how things work, and what can be predicted from them. Evolutionary theory has assisted us in everything from breeding specific animals, to making vaccines etc... Why do we need a new flu shot every year, because the flu virus evolves. Scientists have replicated in the lab virtually every step, from changing of one species to another, to changing one category of creature to another (mostly among smaller animals with shorter lifecycles, as obviously attempting a creature that takes years to reach maturity, cannot go through generations in a reasonable time).
The big thing is, the statements need evidence to back them. Wild assertions with little to no backing evidence made by some joe of the street with no background in working with the subject matter, is not = to a scientific theory with solid backing, solid predictions etc... No scientists are not unfallable, but the peer review system is the most solid thing we have, and it does a pretty darn good job. If creationism wants to be taken seriously, they need to train some scientists, and actually submit something that can be subject to peer review. Believe it or not scientific discoveries are not followed on dogma, if a scientist disproves a major theory, he is not ridiculed, he is awarded a nobel prize. Were scientists mad at Einstien for the fact that relativity disproved many portions of newtons theories? Of course not, the fact that they were tested, and proved is invaluable. The problem with creationism, is they want it to skip past the peer review process, they want it to go straight from the hypothisis stage, into the textbook, with no oversight. A my ignorance is as good as your knowledge argument more or less.
This all sounds great, but it is not really what happens. I've seen some pretty interesting issues raised by folks who are definitely creationists which are summarily dismissed as hogwash because their different world view. Further, the reasoned objections raised by creationists are often not even acknowledged as being anything more than religious based tripe of the lowest order. Canned responses like "Creationism is not based in fact" are often thrown out unfairly.
As I see it, the issue really boils down to your basic world view. If you equate "scientific method" with no creator (i.e. The theory of a creator cannot be proven so therefore must be invalid) then you simply *have* to be dismissive of creationists, because your world view demands it. You get statements like "Creationism is not fact based" because of the basic world view of the speaker, not because the Creationists argument isn't scientific or based on accepted scientific laws and observable facts.
Problem here is that science would have to admit that proving or disproving the existence of a creator is out of its ability, yet in many cases they are driven to assume that a creator does not exist because "it's not scientific to believe that God exists". So, if a creator exists (an open question by most accounts) and science doesn't allow for that possibility there is a good chance that science is wrong in this case.
I consider it a logical folly to simply dismiss the scientific views of others who really just differ in world view. I get it, that if you want to assume there is no creator, Evolution is pretty much the only game in town, but if you allow for a creator to exist in your world view, many more possible ways to explain things arise. Now if you don't want to accept the premise that a creator exists, or at least leave that question open in your world view, how's the results of that different than a religious zealot who refuses to accept that the earth is NOT in the center of the universe? God doesn't exist, so evolution must be true.... Pretty sad
"File to fit, pound to insert, paint to match" - Aircraft Maintenance 101
One thing worth noting, evolution does not disprove in god, nor does the existence of a god disprove evolution. The majority of people in the world, who believe in evolution, are religious, and the majority of the people in the world who are religious, believe in evolution.
The biggest fact remains, evolution makes predictive claims, and they turn out right. Scientists have created new species, anticipated the changes that virus's will make, etc... The age of the universe and earth, have both been calculated from dozens of different methods and sources, and all of the different methods, still come up with nearly the exact same age. If a God created the world, he either used the big bang and evolution as tools, Or he instantly poofed things into existence with natural laws in place specifically designed to make things look like they have been running on such a process. Roughly the equivalent of making a slow moving car, 75% of the way onto a track, and going out of the way to build tire tracks to the first 75% to give people the idea that it is still moving. We have thousands of fossils, of what would be called transitional forms. If the creationists arguements are using the flood as a possibility to explain why the extremely rare process of fossilization has happened so many times, then they need to account for the fact that the pyramids of egypt etc... were made roughly 200 years after the supposed flood. Is there a rational explanation for how the human population got large enough to populate the entire country of egypt in addition to enough countries for them to take slaves from. Rabbits can't populate fast enough to pull that one off, let alone humans.
Evolution is not assumed true because the scientists do not believe in god. Evolution is a fact because there is mounds of evidence and predictions that it has succesfully made, and no competing theories have been able to make any succesful predictions.
If religion never existed, if darwin never existed, evolution would be recreated. There is as much evidence backing the theory of evolution, as the theory of gravity, atomic theory, or the theory of relativity. Evolution vs God isn't an either or question, they could both be true, or they can both be false. As you mentioned however, God as defined by christians, cannot fall into the category of science. by definition or at least believed definition, humans can never and will never be able to invent a tool to detect or measure God. God will never act in a way that can be predicted or tested. So bottom line, god isn't and can't be part of science. So why on earth can there be a case to teach the existance of god, in a science class.
Sorry for the delayed response. I've been busy and this post takes a fair amount of research. In particular, there was a video I saw on YouTube a while ago where a paleontologist went into transitional forms in the fossil record, and I only found it again just recently.
I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.
The difference is my belief is evidence based, not mythology based. Now you've stated that you believe the Bible isn't mythology, but it has all the markings of it. So you have to go out of your way to make the evidence fit the mythology. Scientists used to be much more religious, but abandoned it because the evidence didn't support it.
The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages.
Fair enough, but if God could make the animals come to Noah, he could make them behave on the boat too. For that matter, he didn't need Noah to undertake the superhuman task of creating such a large boat in the first place.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds
Oh, is that all? Even allowing that, you suppose one man and his family was able to store food for 20,000 "kinds", which you then have to double for pairs (or 7 pairs, as the case may be), and have enough food to last for months? And the food didn't rot during this time? Come on, this story is fit for children, not grown adults with an education.
There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins. The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water. The Three Sisters of Australia.
The Grand Canyon is easy to pick on because of the meandering that it does. See this video for an explanation of why a flood wouldn't show that pattern through rock. The article you link to mentions this problem, and then inexplicably, to counter it they use the Wadden Sea as an example that shows meandering, but that's a sandbank! It doesn't cut through hard rock.
Even if I were to accept the creationist view that these are flood events, the challenge for you is to link all these features to the same time period. The Three Sisters article offered a date of "33,720 +/- 430 years". So where's the corresponding evidence with those dates?
Most importantly, where's the extinction event in the fossil record? It would be obvious from such a worldwide flood, especially one so recent. That's what early geologists who were raised in Hebrew mythology expected to find, but they didn't. That's why science has grown to dominantly rejects such myths.
Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly.
I did mention the data, the fossil and genetic record. Also, there's a good reason to attack the source, because it is spectacularly bad.
All over the world people made up different stories and mixed it in with history, ethics, miracles, fantastic tales, explanations of nature, and whatnot, yet we are supposed to believe your mythology is reliable and should cause people to go through vast contortions to try and make the evidence fit. Meanwhile, your all powerful and loving god can't provide clear evidence and the same message to everybody.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms?
Here's the video I mentioned at the start of my post, directly linked to the part of the talk where the paleontologist covers transitional forms.
The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated
Your believe is based on mythology, it also has evidence which is interpeted to fit the story. This is the same for creationists. both are religious views.
Which is complete nonsense, as science changes its beliefs based on the evidence all the time, whereas somebody dedicated to the inerrant truth of the Bible can't change the Bible. Well, they can, but they have to resort to reinterpretation. Religion is based on supernatural explanations, faith, dogma, and testimonial evidence, the weakest kind.
What a surprise that God would actually do things in a book about him.
Which god, and which book, and why do you think your particular god and books have any more authenticity than the others? And why would an all-powerful being not get the same message to everybody, throughout all time?
All the major lines of science were by creationists.
Now the question is why have so many scientists abandoned it since then? Most of the scientists mentioned were before Darwin's theory became accepted. They set out to look at the evidence and it didn't support the Hebrew mythology, so they abandoned it.
I found a link describing alot of your questions about the Ark.
And I still find it ridiculous that a man and his family were able to prepare food for that many animals without it rotting. The whole project is an insanely Herculean task (there's some Greek mythology for you).
but the RFS that caused the first cut into the then freashly laid soft rock.
Sorry, my mistake. I missed the part about soft rock, probably because I thought this guy was at least trying to be somewhat serious instead of trying to treat the geologic layers of the earth as differentiated mud from a single flood event.
It then says the scenerio of the uniformitarian explanation also requires soft alluvium but yet there is none there.
A simple explanation is that it was swept away by erosion if it's a high plain with not enough rain to keep plants and soil. Example: "Very fine grained, light-colored sand and gravel; deposits poorly preserved; thickness 0-2 m. Elevation ranges from 949-952 m near cableway. Mostly an erosional zone along margin of Colorado River." Assuming, of course, that geologists would agree that there's no trace in the area he is talking about.
There's plenty of alluvium evidence around the Grand Canyon, though.
Hence when one dating technique says 220,000,000 years and another says 33,000 it shows that the 220,000,000 has hidden assumptions behind it proven to be incorrect as something can not be both 33K and 220M yrs old at the same time.
I don't know if there is a legitimate discrepancy here (as in I don't know if these results have been verified by mainstream scientists doing their own excavations and tests), but just because there's an anomaly that doesn't mean you can throw out all the other evidence that brought geologists to their current theories.
For example, Back in my home country of New Zealand, there was a vocaino that exploded 3.5 million years ago on June 30, 1954. radioactive dating failure
Anti-link:
"[..] the K-Ar method cannot be used to date samples that are much younger than 6,000 years old [..] their website clearly stated in a footnote that their equipment could not accurately date rocks that are younger than about 2 million years old [..] Considering the statements at the Geochron website and the lowest age limitations of the K-Ar method, why did Austin submit a recently erupted dacite to this laboratory and expect a reliable answer??? Contrary to Swenson's uninformed claim that ' Dr Aus