This is a funny reply. You don't think people have tried to "knock down" the Bible? Is it your contention that Jesus never existed? Do you also believe that Washington, Lincoln, or perhaps Darwin or Einstein are fictional? After all, the only thing you have is historical evidence, and obviously you frown on that. LOL
Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics are not comparable to the theory of molecules-to-man evolution in that you can't test and verify molecules-to-man evolution. In addition, the second law of thermodynamics flies blatantly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thanks for bringing it up! Further, the theory of Relativity is a scientifically falsifiable theory(or not) meaning it also doesn't belong in the realm of "The Big Bang" or molecules-to-man evolution. If someone were able to prove Einstein wrong in part of his theory there certainly wouldn't be a big defensive uproar as is found any time the theory of evolution is challenged.
"Hardly. If you flip a coin a thousand times, I can make a verifiable prediction that the results will be about within 50 heads/tails of 500 heads and 500 tails 95% of the time. You can test that, and see that it's true (actually, those particular numbers may not be accurate; I don't remember the details of the binomial distribution off the top of my head). Yet the process is clearly quite random and involves nothing even resembling intelligence."
Well, you know, except for the whole flipping of the coin and the coin itself. LOL I guess the evolutionist believes the coin made itself or is descended from some lower monetary form. And then the coin flips itself to give you your probability. LOL You are also now talking probabliity which is based on verifiable tests. You can't do the same with the Big Bang or molecules-to-man evolution. Further, the idea that there is an order to which things adhere by which you can make reasonable predictions again implies design, which in turn implies a designer.
As for the rest of your post, your words are simply moronic and sophomoric. We all use the same science. We all have the same facts, we interpret them differently according to our presuppositions. The presuppositions are unavoidable. How is believing the universe to be orderly and designed anti-science, exactly? Isn't that the assumption that you make, too?
"The most accurate way to put it is, you make an observation, you formulate a hypothesis, you design a study and let the chips fall where they fall. The data, if the work is done correctly, will speak for itself. You need to be, as much as humanly possible, unbiased one way or the other, the rest of the bias you do your best to remove with controls."
I don't disagree. Does this describe the dogmatic neo-Darwinist?
First you write:
"Don't be so patronizing"
and then you write
"It is clear to me now, reading your other posts in this thread that you likely have no formal scientific training, and know little of what you speak."
I don't think anything could be funnier than seeing both of those statements by the same person in the same post. LOL
Yes, the Bible is proof. It is historically accurate and its veracity has been attested to throughout the generations. And you may as well use "Origin of Species" as your proof of evolution. It's all you've got. You continue to try to paint Creationists as anti-science, but nothing is further from the truth. Evolutionists themselves are often anti-science. Even well-known and popular evolutionist Ernst Mayr is aware of this fact:
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented."
In other words, if anything is anti-science, it is the belief in undocumented, unrepeatable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Therefore, since it is historical in nature, I'll stick with the history that I have in the Bible over the made up pseudo-science of evolution.
I think you greatly underestimate and misrepresent the scientists who are a part of Answers in Genesis. We are talking about legitimate scientists, not "snake handlers." Your Ad Hominem attacks don't change the truth of the science. The article, after all, is quoting directly from a Royal Astronomical Society article. Ad Hominem is just poor form in any debate, don't you think? Typical, though. There is no desperation on my part or on the part of any of the Scientists who represent Answers in Genesis for "science to be wrong." We just encourage an actual look at the facts.
And why do you assume it mythology? Is it inaccurate historically? A miracle is nothing, if indeed there is a God. You assume Christianity as mythology and therefore a miracle is unfathomable to you. One wonders why it would be a miracle at all if it were easily explained. What I do have that you don't have is historical evidence written down and preserved through the generations. I have eyewitness accounts as written in the Bible attesting to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and his other miracles. Don't assume a blind faith on my part. It is well-reasoned and thought out.
And wouldn't predictability imply design? It certainly doesn't imply chance or randomness as required by the Big-Bang theory. The Bible is not a Science book, but the word of God full of Theology and Philosophy. Unfortunately, the Big Bang theory and evolution are not science either, but full of Theology and Philosophy. Their theology is Atheism and their Philosophy is Naturalism. The whole point of this debate is that each has a presupposition to the way they interpret data. However, time and time again, ideas such as "selection" or "order" are used by evolutionists and the very ideas imply a designer or creator.
Point being that you can't blame Intelligent Design for failing Science education.
As far as fantasy, nothing is more fantastical than the molecules-to-man evolution myth. And Creationists are not left out of the academic science system, that simply isn't true. Creationists and evolutionists all "do" the same science, they just start with different presuppositions. Your post was just more provocative rhetoric attempting to paint Creationists as anti-science or anti-intellectual. Creationists invite debate, it is the evolutionists that cannot defend any challenges against their faulty theory and therefore refuse to debate.
By the way, CLICK HERE for an article dealing with your incorrect assumption regarding cosmic background noise. Here is an excerpt from the article:
A 2 February 2004 press release from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) was headlined as 'Corrupted echos from the big bang?' on their own website1 and 'Are galaxy clusters corrupting Big Bang echoes?' on the Spaceflight Now2 website. All the excitement was in response to a new analysis of data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). A team at the University of Durham, led by Professor Tom Shanks, has reported that the variability in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) data is significantly distorted by clouds of gas through which it has travelled.
These headlines are amazing, as the WMAP data had been previously heralded as being the most precise measure of the early echoes of the big bang. They were called echoes because it was believed they were the result of the acoustic waves generated at the stage, after the big bang, where radiation separated from matter. The small-density fluctuations in the matter/radiation density at that time, which resulted in the echoes, is claimed to be the seed for the formation of galaxies and clusters later in the development of the universe.
This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the origin of the universe may be all wrong. The RAS press release goes on to say:
'But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a "New Era of Precision Cosmology" may prove to be premature! "Our results may ultimately undermine the belief that the Universe is dominated by an elusive cold dark matter particle and the even more enigmatic dark energy", said Professor Shanks' [emphasis added].
Really? Wow, thanks for breaking it down scientifically for us. Brilliant! So, as an evolutionist, you have reproducible proof that an insanely dense ball of matter about the size of my fingernail exploded and the results from this explosion were planets, stars, galaxies and, evidently background noise? What laboratory was this reproduced in? I haven't seen it in any journals. You act as though Creationists or ID-ists are anti-science when any Creationist I know of has more scientific background and critical thinking in any one sentence they've ever spoken than you show in your last post.
"You don't try to disprove your theory. But you must be open to the fact that your theory can be wrong. That is where pathological science and the likes come in."
You absolutely try to disprove your theory. Good grief, I suppose this is a good example of what the article was talking about. By attempting to disprove it you find the flaws, if there are any, in the theory or hypothesis. You then adjust the theory accordingly. Moreover, the dogmatic neo-Darwinist is far from "open to the fact that (their) theory can be wrong."
And evolutionists (neo-Darwinists) have their hypothesis. And actually, you're wrong. Science is supposed to be forming a hypothesis and then trying to disprove it via the scientific method. So "trying to knock down evolution" should be what is done on a daily basis by scientists, but instead they go to every extreme to try and prove it true. That, my confused friend, is "not how science works."
Are you talking about Darwinist Origins Science now? Maybe you forgot that every day neo-Darwinists promote and believe something for which there is no evidence. I can only assume that's who you're talking about.
The truth is there is far too little actual critical-thinking and science going on in our classrooms and it shows in our science scores. Who is it contributing to the problem? Surely you can't mean it is the Intelligent Design crowd who is left completely out of the public school system. You can't bar the argument from the classroom and then blame it for low science scores.
That's funny I didn't think Intelligent Design was allowed in the classroom. Maybe if the dogmatic neo-Darwinists would allow for some debate and actual science in the classrooms, the Science scores would improve across the board. But, while claiming to be scientific, these dogmatists are little more than stubborn atheists.
"What happened was that a single species broke into two separate species. Both species continued to change and evolve. A chimpanzee has done just as much "evolving" as a human has, it just went in a different direction. Whatever the case though, if you were to compare a chimpanzee ancestor to a human and a modern chimp, you would find that you are looking at three very different species."
Well, you know if there were ever anything actually discovered with which to compare among the three. Funny how that's never happened, eh?
"The acts these men performed are the very foundation of the science that the creationist's argument is positioned against.There is also the issue of your implication of their support for the modern creationist argument. Even when they accepted the general therom, todays form of dogmatic faith might might be a bad fit. There is no way you know what these people actually thought about such matters."
This reply is as post-modern as they come. You want to argue about what they "could have meant" rather than what was actually said. It is clear through their writings and research that the men listed were devout Christians. While there was bound to be a degree of difference on non-essential beliefs, they were all Christians. You state that creationist arguments are "positioned against" science. This could not be further from the truth. The men listed above were Christian, and were Creationist. You are correct in one regard, though. Evolution does, indeed, cross over from the realm of Science into Philosophy. But to state that we "can't know what these men really believed" is as post-modern as it gets. If this were the case, I could say the same thing about Darwin himself! Yes, we know what he wrote, but no one can really know what was meant by his words! Your experience doesn't negate any absolutes. And to state that theism or Christianity is just about control over women and children is just provocative rhetoric.
"Even if it does or does not, just because something is true here and now does not mean it will be true elsewhere or tommorrow. Please keep some humility about your assertations of knowledge."
More post-modern drivel. Either something is true or it is not. Ultimate Truth does not change with the times. For instance, back in Darwin's day, though they didn't know about protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. These things always existed, but had just not yet been discovered. Not knowing something doesn't make it false. You tell me to keep some humility about (my assertions) of knowledge all the while making some pretty outrageous assertions yourself. Where is your humility? Why is simply stating a fact not showing humility? If this is the case then aren't we both guilty? LOL
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. What makes the most sense to me (and this was even before I became a Christian) is that the intricacy and design that we see in our every-day life implies a designer. The idea that chance could randomly concoct DNA and Protein and Amino Acids and somehow bring about life has always seemed ludicrous to me. Why, the mathematical impossibilities alone are staggering! When we see design in any other arena we automatically assume that someone was there to design it. I realize, simply because I can't fathom there not being a Designer doesn't necessarily mean that there is one, but as I apply the principles of design and designer from other areas, I cannot help but see God's hand in the design of the most complex machine of them all -- Mankind. Darwin himself had no knowledge of DNA or anything of the like, and the lengths to which many of today's evolutionists are willing to push things far exceed anything Darwin every dreamed of. I believe Genesis has everything to do with the fossil record. I hold the Word of God in the highest regard, and believe what it says about itself and what witnesses as to its veracity have done and said in the giving of their very lives to adhere to it. In doing so, it doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion. If we aren't to take the story of Adam and Eve literally, then that has a ripple-effect that, of necessity, negates anything else of any importance in the Bible, namely, the need for a Savior, the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ and all that it means to humanity. Many don't see the correlation, but, nonetheless, there it is. I love Science. I love Truth, and logic and sound reasoning. I have found in my own experience that I certainly don't have to abandon any of these things in my walk with Christ. But, alternatively, there seems to be a lack of sound reasoning and logic found in the arguments of the dogmatic evolutionists. They really seem more anti-God than they do pro-evolution....if you get my meaning. At any rate, I thank you for your time and kind disposition during our dialogue.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. What this whole debate really boils down to is a battle of presuppositions. Evolutionists see evidence of The Big Bang, Survival of the Fittest, Descent with Modification, etc. because they are viewing the evidence through Evolutionist lenses. There is no way to "once and for all time" reproduce, observe or otherwise use the scientific method to validate the aforementioned theories. Neither can a Creationist scientifically reproduce or use the scientific method to validate the Creationist viewpoint. Both sides see the same evidence and both sides have arguments for why the evidence supports their argument. But it is a great misrepresentation of Creationists to label them as anti-Science.
The paragraphs below are taken from an article found at ANSWERS IN GENESIS
"While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model, it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel-time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe.
The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other.
The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel-time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem."
"But belief in evolution is still motivated by observation, it is not some sort of metaphysical or tautological assumption. If it were, then we would be completely wasting our time even discussing the fossil record."
That's where we differ. I think the evolutionary theory, as it stands today, represents the pinnacle of tautology. The circular reasoning usually goes something like this:
An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a paleontologist says, 'The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.' But an embryologist says, 'Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor'. However, the molecular biologist says, 'There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.'
So what we end up seeing is that each field is fraught with holes and circular reasoning and reliance upon another field that has the same holes and circular reasoning. It's something that I find almost comical and in nearly every other area of study would not be allowed. And let's not kid ourselves. The way a theory is developed in science is to assume the theory is correct and try to disprove it. However, in regard to things like the Big Bang or molecules-to-man evolution there is no reproducible, verifiable evidence. Therefore, the evolutionist starts with a presupposition, and as is evidenced by all the fakes and frauds, will stop at nothing to prove it true via fossil finds. As I stated earlier, we all have the same evidence. It is in the interpretation of the evidence that we disagree.
"Perhaps you can't see the actual creation of this information anymore than you can directly see the fusion taking place in the Sun. In the case of evolution, you have too look at the effects of fossils that may be hundres of millions of years old."
And in looking at the "effects of the fossils" as you put it, there has never been a transitional form shown that meets the criteria. One would think if molecules-to-man evolution were true that there would be many, many examples. In fact, since Darwin's day, the fossil record has worked against this type of evolutionary theory, not for it. Darwin assumed the fossil record would bear out his theory as finds were made. It has done just the opposite.
"There seems to be nothing wrong with saying that genetic information was created naturally. There is no evidence that genetic information can't be created, unlike, say, mass/energy, net electrical charge, or that entropy must ultimately increase for a closed system. So I don't understand how this is an issue separate from the validity of the fossil record."
That's fine, you can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it scientifically sound! You say "there is no evidence that genetic information can't be created," I say there is no evidence that it can be created. Your statement is not scientifically testable. You are assuming it based a priori on a belief that evolution is true. This is one constant I find with those who espouse evolution. They use evolution to prove evolution is true, starting with the assumption that evolution is true rather than having it proven scientifically. As far as the fossil record being valid, I agree, it is valid, but it doesn't support the neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory as it stands.
Molecules-to-man evolution requires the production of large amounts of new genetic information. In searching for possible mechanisms, evolutionists have sometimes pointed to the ability of cells to make, and retain, multiple copies of their DNA. Every time a cell divides, the DNA is copied and the new copy is usually passed on to the daughter cell. But it can sometimes happen that the copy remains in the parent cell. When a whole set of chromosomes is copied and retained in this way, the condition is called 'polyploidy'. Some defenders of evolution have tried to claim that this is an example of the 'new information' creationists ask (so far in vain) to see proof of, if evolution is to have credibility. However, informed evolutionists generally realize that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it.
However, many evolutionists have argued that this 'extra' DNA from chromosome duplication can provide at least the raw material for mutations to work on. The 'extra copy' is supposedly liberated to produce new genetic information by accidental change, in addition to the standard information in the original.
If this process had been an important factor in the 'evolution' of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the Tree of Life. The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA, and complex organisms like man should have the most.
Is that what we find? Not at all. Some microbes have more chromosomes and more DNA than man. Man has only a modest 46 chromosomes, falling somewhere in the middle of the range that goes from 1 chromosome in an ant (quite an advanced organism compared to a microbe) to over six hundred in some plants.
"Actually, the Most Recent Common Ancestor was probably a human about 3500 years ago, but... That whole "watchmaker" nonsense has been put paid. Take the argument apart, and it fails.
I'm sorry, you'll have to do a little better than that. How has it "been put paid?" You call it nonsense, but from a philisophical standpoint it seems to me to be common sense. How does it fall apart again?
"Are you saying speciation has never happened?"
Do I really need to answer that again? No. It hasn't happened. Again, show me. There is nothing in the fossil record remotely indicating it.
Slashdot Mirror
Gravity and the laws of thermodynamics are not comparable to the theory of molecules-to-man evolution in that you can't test and verify molecules-to-man evolution. In addition, the second law of thermodynamics flies blatantly in the face of evolutionary theory. Thanks for bringing it up! Further, the theory of Relativity is a scientifically falsifiable theory(or not) meaning it also doesn't belong in the realm of "The Big Bang" or molecules-to-man evolution. If someone were able to prove Einstein wrong in part of his theory there certainly wouldn't be a big defensive uproar as is found any time the theory of evolution is challenged.
Well, you know, except for the whole flipping of the coin and the coin itself. LOL I guess the evolutionist believes the coin made itself or is descended from some lower monetary form. And then the coin flips itself to give you your probability. LOL You are also now talking probabliity which is based on verifiable tests. You can't do the same with the Big Bang or molecules-to-man evolution. Further, the idea that there is an order to which things adhere by which you can make reasonable predictions again implies design, which in turn implies a designer. As for the rest of your post, your words are simply moronic and sophomoric. We all use the same science. We all have the same facts, we interpret them differently according to our presuppositions. The presuppositions are unavoidable. How is believing the universe to be orderly and designed anti-science, exactly? Isn't that the assumption that you make, too?
I don't disagree. Does this describe the dogmatic neo-Darwinist?
First you write: "Don't be so patronizing" and then you write "It is clear to me now, reading your other posts in this thread that you likely have no formal scientific training, and know little of what you speak."
I don't think anything could be funnier than seeing both of those statements by the same person in the same post. LOL
"Evolution is a historical process that cannot be proven by the same arguments and methods by which purely physical or functional phenomena can be documented."
In other words, if anything is anti-science, it is the belief in undocumented, unrepeatable, unobservable molecules-to-man evolution. Therefore, since it is historical in nature, I'll stick with the history that I have in the Bible over the made up pseudo-science of evolution.
I think you greatly underestimate and misrepresent the scientists who are a part of Answers in Genesis. We are talking about legitimate scientists, not "snake handlers." Your Ad Hominem attacks don't change the truth of the science. The article, after all, is quoting directly from a Royal Astronomical Society article. Ad Hominem is just poor form in any debate, don't you think? Typical, though. There is no desperation on my part or on the part of any of the Scientists who represent Answers in Genesis for "science to be wrong." We just encourage an actual look at the facts.
And why do you assume it mythology? Is it inaccurate historically? A miracle is nothing, if indeed there is a God. You assume Christianity as mythology and therefore a miracle is unfathomable to you. One wonders why it would be a miracle at all if it were easily explained. What I do have that you don't have is historical evidence written down and preserved through the generations. I have eyewitness accounts as written in the Bible attesting to the death, burial and resurrection of Christ and his other miracles. Don't assume a blind faith on my part. It is well-reasoned and thought out.
And wouldn't predictability imply design? It certainly doesn't imply chance or randomness as required by the Big-Bang theory. The Bible is not a Science book, but the word of God full of Theology and Philosophy. Unfortunately, the Big Bang theory and evolution are not science either, but full of Theology and Philosophy. Their theology is Atheism and their Philosophy is Naturalism. The whole point of this debate is that each has a presupposition to the way they interpret data. However, time and time again, ideas such as "selection" or "order" are used by evolutionists and the very ideas imply a designer or creator.
Point being that you can't blame Intelligent Design for failing Science education. As far as fantasy, nothing is more fantastical than the molecules-to-man evolution myth. And Creationists are not left out of the academic science system, that simply isn't true. Creationists and evolutionists all "do" the same science, they just start with different presuppositions. Your post was just more provocative rhetoric attempting to paint Creationists as anti-science or anti-intellectual. Creationists invite debate, it is the evolutionists that cannot defend any challenges against their faulty theory and therefore refuse to debate.
A 2 February 2004 press release from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) was headlined as 'Corrupted echos from the big bang?' on their own website1 and 'Are galaxy clusters corrupting Big Bang echoes?' on the Spaceflight Now2 website. All the excitement was in response to a new analysis of data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). A team at the University of Durham, led by Professor Tom Shanks, has reported that the variability in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) data is significantly distorted by clouds of gas through which it has travelled. These headlines are amazing, as the WMAP data had been previously heralded as being the most precise measure of the early echoes of the big bang. They were called echoes because it was believed they were the result of the acoustic waves generated at the stage, after the big bang, where radiation separated from matter. The small-density fluctuations in the matter/radiation density at that time, which resulted in the echoes, is claimed to be the seed for the formation of galaxies and clusters later in the development of the universe. This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the origin of the universe may be all wrong. The RAS press release goes on to say: 'But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a "New Era of Precision Cosmology" may prove to be premature! "Our results may ultimately undermine the belief that the Universe is dominated by an elusive cold dark matter particle and the even more enigmatic dark energy", said Professor Shanks' [emphasis added].
Really? Wow, thanks for breaking it down scientifically for us. Brilliant! So, as an evolutionist, you have reproducible proof that an insanely dense ball of matter about the size of my fingernail exploded and the results from this explosion were planets, stars, galaxies and, evidently background noise? What laboratory was this reproduced in? I haven't seen it in any journals. You act as though Creationists or ID-ists are anti-science when any Creationist I know of has more scientific background and critical thinking in any one sentence they've ever spoken than you show in your last post.
"You don't try to disprove your theory. But you must be open to the fact that your theory can be wrong. That is where pathological science and the likes come in." You absolutely try to disprove your theory. Good grief, I suppose this is a good example of what the article was talking about. By attempting to disprove it you find the flaws, if there are any, in the theory or hypothesis. You then adjust the theory accordingly. Moreover, the dogmatic neo-Darwinist is far from "open to the fact that (their) theory can be wrong."
It's called the Bible. Where is your evidence of the Big Bang or molecules-to-man evolution?
And evolutionists (neo-Darwinists) have their hypothesis. And actually, you're wrong. Science is supposed to be forming a hypothesis and then trying to disprove it via the scientific method. So "trying to knock down evolution" should be what is done on a daily basis by scientists, but instead they go to every extreme to try and prove it true. That, my confused friend, is "not how science works."
Are you talking about Darwinist Origins Science now? Maybe you forgot that every day neo-Darwinists promote and believe something for which there is no evidence. I can only assume that's who you're talking about. The truth is there is far too little actual critical-thinking and science going on in our classrooms and it shows in our science scores. Who is it contributing to the problem? Surely you can't mean it is the Intelligent Design crowd who is left completely out of the public school system. You can't bar the argument from the classroom and then blame it for low science scores.
That's funny I didn't think Intelligent Design was allowed in the classroom. Maybe if the dogmatic neo-Darwinists would allow for some debate and actual science in the classrooms, the Science scores would improve across the board. But, while claiming to be scientific, these dogmatists are little more than stubborn atheists.
---------------------
No, I'm not a troll!
Well, you know if there were ever anything actually discovered with which to compare among the three. Funny how that's never happened, eh?
I've been using AVG for about 5 years. It has been great and I've been virus free.
This reply is as post-modern as they come. You want to argue about what they "could have meant" rather than what was actually said. It is clear through their writings and research that the men listed were devout Christians. While there was bound to be a degree of difference on non-essential beliefs, they were all Christians. You state that creationist arguments are "positioned against" science. This could not be further from the truth. The men listed above were Christian, and were Creationist. You are correct in one regard, though. Evolution does, indeed, cross over from the realm of Science into Philosophy. But to state that we "can't know what these men really believed" is as post-modern as it gets. If this were the case, I could say the same thing about Darwin himself! Yes, we know what he wrote, but no one can really know what was meant by his words! Your experience doesn't negate any absolutes. And to state that theism or Christianity is just about control over women and children is just provocative rhetoric.
"Even if it does or does not, just because something is true here and now does not mean it will be true elsewhere or tommorrow. Please keep some humility about your assertations of knowledge."
More post-modern drivel. Either something is true or it is not. Ultimate Truth does not change with the times. For instance, back in Darwin's day, though they didn't know about protons, electrons, neutrons, etc. These things always existed, but had just not yet been discovered. Not knowing something doesn't make it false. You tell me to keep some humility about (my assertions) of knowledge all the while making some pretty outrageous assertions yourself. Where is your humility? Why is simply stating a fact not showing humility? If this is the case then aren't we both guilty? LOL
I don't disagree with a lot of what you say. What makes the most sense to me (and this was even before I became a Christian) is that the intricacy and design that we see in our every-day life implies a designer. The idea that chance could randomly concoct DNA and Protein and Amino Acids and somehow bring about life has always seemed ludicrous to me. Why, the mathematical impossibilities alone are staggering! When we see design in any other arena we automatically assume that someone was there to design it. I realize, simply because I can't fathom there not being a Designer doesn't necessarily mean that there is one, but as I apply the principles of design and designer from other areas, I cannot help but see God's hand in the design of the most complex machine of them all -- Mankind. Darwin himself had no knowledge of DNA or anything of the like, and the lengths to which many of today's evolutionists are willing to push things far exceed anything Darwin every dreamed of. I believe Genesis has everything to do with the fossil record. I hold the Word of God in the highest regard, and believe what it says about itself and what witnesses as to its veracity have done and said in the giving of their very lives to adhere to it. In doing so, it doesn't leave a lot of room for discussion. If we aren't to take the story of Adam and Eve literally, then that has a ripple-effect that, of necessity, negates anything else of any importance in the Bible, namely, the need for a Savior, the birth, life and death of Jesus Christ and all that it means to humanity. Many don't see the correlation, but, nonetheless, there it is. I love Science. I love Truth, and logic and sound reasoning. I have found in my own experience that I certainly don't have to abandon any of these things in my walk with Christ. But, alternatively, there seems to be a lack of sound reasoning and logic found in the arguments of the dogmatic evolutionists. They really seem more anti-God than they do pro-evolution....if you get my meaning. At any rate, I thank you for your time and kind disposition during our dialogue.
I appreciate your thoughtful comments. What this whole debate really boils down to is a battle of presuppositions. Evolutionists see evidence of The Big Bang, Survival of the Fittest, Descent with Modification, etc. because they are viewing the evidence through Evolutionist lenses. There is no way to "once and for all time" reproduce, observe or otherwise use the scientific method to validate the aforementioned theories. Neither can a Creationist scientifically reproduce or use the scientific method to validate the Creationist viewpoint. Both sides see the same evidence and both sides have arguments for why the evidence supports their argument. But it is a great misrepresentation of Creationists to label them as anti-Science.
"While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model, it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel-time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe. The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel-time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem."
That's where we differ. I think the evolutionary theory, as it stands today, represents the pinnacle of tautology. The circular reasoning usually goes something like this: An evolutionist who is an expert in one field thinks that the best evidence for evolution is in a totally different field, in which he does not speak as an authority. For example, a paleontologist says, 'The fossil record shows that most creatures appear fully formed, and an extreme rarity of transitional forms. But the embryologists have shown that early embryos look alike, which proves evolution.' But an embryologist says, 'Richardson showed that Haeckel faked the drawings purporting to show embryonic similarity. But the molecular biologists have shown that the similarity of DNA points to evolution from a common ancestor'. However, the molecular biologist says, 'There are huge differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and intricate biological machinery, e.g. the rotary motors of the bacterial flagellum and F1-ATPase. But the paleontologists have shown that the fossils show an evolutionary sequence.' So what we end up seeing is that each field is fraught with holes and circular reasoning and reliance upon another field that has the same holes and circular reasoning. It's something that I find almost comical and in nearly every other area of study would not be allowed. And let's not kid ourselves. The way a theory is developed in science is to assume the theory is correct and try to disprove it. However, in regard to things like the Big Bang or molecules-to-man evolution there is no reproducible, verifiable evidence. Therefore, the evolutionist starts with a presupposition, and as is evidenced by all the fakes and frauds, will stop at nothing to prove it true via fossil finds. As I stated earlier, we all have the same evidence. It is in the interpretation of the evidence that we disagree.
And in looking at the "effects of the fossils" as you put it, there has never been a transitional form shown that meets the criteria. One would think if molecules-to-man evolution were true that there would be many, many examples. In fact, since Darwin's day, the fossil record has worked against this type of evolutionary theory, not for it. Darwin assumed the fossil record would bear out his theory as finds were made. It has done just the opposite.
"There seems to be nothing wrong with saying that genetic information was created naturally. There is no evidence that genetic information can't be created, unlike, say, mass/energy, net electrical charge, or that entropy must ultimately increase for a closed system. So I don't understand how this is an issue separate from the validity of the fossil record."
That's fine, you can say it all you want, but that doesn't make it scientifically sound! You say "there is no evidence that genetic information can't be created," I say there is no evidence that it can be created. Your statement is not scientifically testable. You are assuming it based a priori on a belief that evolution is true. This is one constant I find with those who espouse evolution. They use evolution to prove evolution is true, starting with the assumption that evolution is true rather than having it proven scientifically. As far as the fossil record being valid, I agree, it is valid, but it doesn't support the neo-Darwinist evolutionary theory as it stands.
Molecules-to-man evolution requires the production of large amounts of new genetic information. In searching for possible mechanisms, evolutionists have sometimes pointed to the ability of cells to make, and retain, multiple copies of their DNA. Every time a cell divides, the DNA is copied and the new copy is usually passed on to the daughter cell. But it can sometimes happen that the copy remains in the parent cell. When a whole set of chromosomes is copied and retained in this way, the condition is called 'polyploidy'. Some defenders of evolution have tried to claim that this is an example of the 'new information' creationists ask (so far in vain) to see proof of, if evolution is to have credibility. However, informed evolutionists generally realize that photocopying a page adds no new information; it just duplicates it. However, many evolutionists have argued that this 'extra' DNA from chromosome duplication can provide at least the raw material for mutations to work on. The 'extra copy' is supposedly liberated to produce new genetic information by accidental change, in addition to the standard information in the original. If this process had been an important factor in the 'evolution' of life, then we should find that the number of chromosomes and/or the mass of DNA per cell would increase as you move up the Tree of Life. The organisms with the most DNA should have had the greatest exposure to mutation and thus the greatest opportunity for evolutionary advancement. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms should have the least amount of DNA, and complex organisms like man should have the most. Is that what we find? Not at all. Some microbes have more chromosomes and more DNA than man. Man has only a modest 46 chromosomes, falling somewhere in the middle of the range that goes from 1 chromosome in an ant (quite an advanced organism compared to a microbe) to over six hundred in some plants.
I'm sorry, you'll have to do a little better than that. How has it "been put paid?" You call it nonsense, but from a philisophical standpoint it seems to me to be common sense. How does it fall apart again?
"Are you saying speciation has never happened?"
Do I really need to answer that again? No. It hasn't happened. Again, show me. There is nothing in the fossil record remotely indicating it.