The problem with evolutionists is that well It is simply an attempt remove any reference to GOD in life and project arrogant people as "gods". The fact is there is NONE absolutely no evidence at all of the BIG BANG. Scientists have not yet explained the big bang other than it may have happened but don't know where the original mass came from and that is where every evolution, big bang, small bang, spread theory, alien theory, big suns theory, super mass theory, goes wrong. IT takes the mentality of a grade school child to reason out that something can't just be created with out a creator.
Perverting and bastardizing the laws of physics to prove a point for selfish reasons is not science. It is false diseased conjecture and it belongs with all of those religious fruitcake cults you seem to have the misfortune of running into too all the time.
Religious relics are false(what?). You seem to understand some of the finer points of science(I'll use that term usely). Take some time to look at the finer points of "religion". Saying religious as a general term synomomous with creationism is wrong. Juding from that you obviously don't have an understanding of what encompasses the faith of different people and I will not explain it to you.
In summation,
One of the reasons Creationism is plausibleto me is it has a scientific explanation of what was, is, and is to become with no gaps. no postulating. Any questions can be answered. Any other theory I have read major has problems.
One BIG one that you hit upon was the bridging hominids Where are the hominids? Where are the skeletons? Where are the bones in the opposable thumbs of the hominids?. There has not been a single skeleton found or partial one found. Meanhwile there have been thousands of skeletons found of humans. But go ahead if you want your 10^1000th great grandfather to be a chimp. Be my guest. My oldest ancestor had no belly button and named chimps.
In this context, there is very little difference in Deism and Creationism. Put another way, the differences between the two concepts are trivial in terms of this discussion.
Deism indicates no concern over creation after it is produced. Creationism indicates concern and a plan for the creation. Huge difference no matter what the context. Deists can suscribe to evolution. Creationists can not.
Despite your claims to the contrary, there are very well defined theories that describe the history of the universe from a few nanoseconds after the Big Bang all the way up to present day. There is always room in science for further refinements, and arguments among researchers over the nature of those refinements are often spun to be arguments over the essential correctness of the theory.
What before the big bang or what is a small one with many many occluded chain reactions?
I said "Centuries of Bible scholars who devoted their entire lives to studying the scriptures would have argued quite vehmently that you were sorely mistaken in your interpretation of what the Bible says." That should make it quite clear that I'm referring to history, not to people yet alive. If the Bible made it so clear that the Earth is round and hangs in space, why was it heresy to make those same claims for so long?
It was heresy to call the earth round and it was "a" powerful religious(read sociopolitical) force that threatened and killed people for saying that the earth was round but not all creationists(read most) ascribed to their theory. And that particular group was not representative of all religous beliefs who hold creationist views. They were horribly wrong for doing that. And we can see what happens when one group tries to suppress another into wrong thinking. People become an afterthought. Those same people who persecuted were fundamental agnostics.
Finally, science does not use hindsight and observation to affect a change in the future. It uses observation and experiementation to determine the essential nature of phenomenon. No theory is absolute - they are always subject to new interpretation and refinement in light of new facts or information.
Experimentation is using hindsight and modifying trials to make changes. I do agree with you no theory is absolute but laws and facts are. So according to your statement the theory of Evolution is constantly changing and always open to interpretation and never really truly refined.
Creationism has never changed and it never can.
Let's look at this statement alone since that seems to be the recurring theme. It seems to me you have been advocating Humanism (with maybe a agnostic, deistic, or atheistic slant)
Creationism
Explains the "beginning" where everything came from before and immediately after the creation of the world as we know it.
in contrast Humanism
There is no theory that explains the beginning. We just don't know
Creationism
Explains the "end" immediately before and immediately after the end of the world
Humanism
THere is no forseeable end except by some eventual Extinction Level Event or extreme Catstrophe or by the earth winding down.
Creationism
Genealogical record dating from the birth of mankind
humanism
Evolution evidenced by faulty "fossil records"
of which some have been exposed as fakes. There is no biological record indicating the descendency from primates
creationism
explains the reasons behind physical and genetic detorioration in man
"see 'entropy'"
Humanism
goes against scientific laws and says that widespread genetic mutations produced positive effects.
Which one takes more "FAITH" to believer Humanism or Creationism.?
The universe as a whole won't lose energy. But parts in it will. The earth's rotational speed is slowing. The sun's diameter is shrinking. The present state of things in our universe is decidely different than a thousand years ago. In other words yes certain pieces of matter will exhibit different randomness in excitability etc...
But look at the overall picture of our solar system. we can intelligently look at the ways things are degrading now. Estimate what they would have to be to support life and exist in the past and do the same for the future to find out a lot more than we know now. Instead of chasing conjecture theories. Simply because we know things are degrading at a measurable "speed".
Man what a thrill I had reading your reply. Confusing Deism(see watchmaker statement) with Creationism?? Now I have heard it all. To make it clearer. Science has still not yet explained where "we" (juxtapose energy) come from. There are many theories about how life and earth came to be that when followed to their beginning fall apart. Yet besides aliens creating us (hmm.. sounds like a twist on the God Theory?)from a distant galaxy there aren't any really any "scientific" theories.
FYI I can attain to the thoery that the earth existed millions of years ago. Just not in its present earth. The earth could have and in all likely hood did exist "void" of life and "without form" billions of trillions of years of ago.
Also show me a Bible Scholar who vehemently denies the scientific conclusions found in the Bible and I will show you an agnostic. Thereby presenting another conundrum.
As to hindsight isn't that what science is... using hindsight and observation to affect a change in the future.
First me sadly mistaken about Scientific truths in the Bible!?... Man, this is what years of fakin' Sagan will do to people. One of the most oldest books in the Bible reveals that the earth is round (not flat as Columbus Contemporaries thought)and that the earth "hangs" in space not on a gravity string or in a fixed material ring that scientists as late as Galilieo described the earth to be. Just these two alone predate their "discoveries" by thousands of years and guess what?that doesn't take any supposition at all. That date is purely by genealogical record. Last but not least. How can anyone say that a complex creation did not have a complex creator. I said the most simple explanation is that a complex Creator created a complex creation. A computer that was built be a person just doesn't say to itself (it could reason) I am complex, therefore I can think complex thoughts, therefore I can assume that I am the most complex entity and there couldn't possible be a more complex being that created me. It would be faulty for the computer to assume that without looking at the orgins of the matter that makes up part of its being. The silicon, silver, plastic, gold all had a source and until the computer can reason that completely out and provide a source for the things that make it what it is, it can't preclude that there is something more complex that created it.
Never the less where did the energy come from? The "hot point" is indicative of concentrated energy and guess what?!!... the space you are referring is made of energy. So where did the energy come from? Giant space gnome monkeys?
Occam's Razor... I guess you are referring to my statment about simplicity...I was referring to the simple explanation that it takes a complex Creator to develop a complex system or systems. That it something just doesn't exists at one point in time and then just "exists". Science is used so many times to refute the creation of energy by a Creator yet some of the most complex scientific(according to the time it took people to recogonize them as fact) theories were explained in one of the most ancient books ever written (yeah.. Homer's works and ugaritic text and cuniform are relative contemporaries)before scientists "caught up" with it.
HA HA HA
What ever happened to Newton's First law of thermodynamics? Energy is conserved never destroyed... the universe can be looked at as a closed system. To say that at one point in "time" there was no energy and then all of a sudden there was energy and that energy made a "big bang" which spawned complex life forms and planetery systems is ludricrous. Plus how does someone explain the second law of thermo where energy is "diffused" or spread out? Sure there are arguments that can be made that suggest entropy created complex structures but come on! how can someone say entropy is somewhat responsible for the universe as we know it and millions of other star systems as we know it? No... energy patterns degrade and change to less complex energy patterns. Like complex leaves decaying and turning to less complex matter that is used by trees and other things "so are days of our lives"
can't get "something" from "nothing"
Slashdot Mirror
This has turned into a rant and rave non logical blog. I'm out.
Perverting and bastardizing the laws of physics to prove a point for selfish reasons is not science. It is false diseased conjecture and it belongs with all of those religious fruitcake cults you seem to have the misfortune of running into too all the time.
Religious relics are false(what?). You seem to understand some of the finer points of science(I'll use that term usely). Take some time to look at the finer points of "religion". Saying religious as a general term synomomous with creationism is wrong. Juding from that you obviously don't have an understanding of what encompasses the faith of different people and I will not explain it to you.
In summation,
One of the reasons Creationism is plausibleto me is it has a scientific explanation of what was, is, and is to become with no gaps. no postulating. Any questions can be answered. Any other theory I have read major has problems.
One BIG one that you hit upon was the bridging hominids Where are the hominids? Where are the skeletons? Where are the bones in the opposable thumbs of the hominids?. There has not been a single skeleton found or partial one found. Meanhwile there have been thousands of skeletons found of humans. But go ahead if you want your 10^1000th great grandfather to be a chimp. Be my guest. My oldest ancestor had no belly button and named chimps.
What before the big bang or what is a small one with many many occluded chain reactions?
It was heresy to call the earth round and it was "a" powerful religious(read sociopolitical) force that threatened and killed people for saying that the earth was round but not all creationists(read most) ascribed to their theory. And that particular group was not representative of all religous beliefs who hold creationist views. They were horribly wrong for doing that. And we can see what happens when one group tries to suppress another into wrong thinking. People become an afterthought. Those same people who persecuted were fundamental agnostics. Experimentation is using hindsight and modifying trials to make changes. I do agree with you no theory is absolute but laws and facts are. So according to your statement the theory of Evolution is constantly changing and always open to interpretation and never really truly refined. Creationism has never changed and it never can.Let's look at this statement alone since that seems to be the recurring theme. It seems to me you have been advocating Humanism (with maybe a agnostic, deistic, or atheistic slant)
Creationism
Explains the "beginning" where everything came from before and immediately after the creation of the world as we know it.
in contrast Humanism
There is no theory that explains the beginning. We just don't know
Creationism
Explains the "end" immediately before and immediately after the end of the world
Humanism
THere is no forseeable end except by some eventual Extinction Level Event or extreme Catstrophe or by the earth winding down.
Creationism
Genealogical record dating from the birth of mankind
humanism
Evolution evidenced by faulty "fossil records" of which some have been exposed as fakes. There is no biological record indicating the descendency from primates
creationism
explains the reasons behind physical and genetic detorioration in man "see 'entropy'"
Humanism
goes against scientific laws and says that widespread genetic mutations produced positive effects. Which one takes more "FAITH" to believer Humanism or Creationism.?
I will give to a short version of why I think Monkeys didn't create the world.
Apple trees as opposed to only banana trees, zookeepers, and "Planet of the Apes" exist.
ask a stupid question get a stupid answer.
But look at the overall picture of our solar system. we can intelligently look at the ways things are degrading now. Estimate what they would have to be to support life and exist in the past and do the same for the future to find out a lot more than we know now. Instead of chasing conjecture theories. Simply because we know things are degrading at a measurable "speed".
FYI I can attain to the thoery that the earth existed millions of years ago. Just not in its present earth. The earth could have and in all likely hood did exist "void" of life and "without form" billions of trillions of years of ago.
Also show me a Bible Scholar who vehemently denies the scientific conclusions found in the Bible and I will show you an agnostic. Thereby presenting another conundrum.
As to hindsight isn't that what science is... using hindsight and observation to affect a change in the future.
Your response is invalid.
Sometimes the most simplest answer explains the most complex things. And yet people still don't accept them. Cliff notes anyone?