A few days ago I came across a great book just published by the National Academy of Sciences entitled Science, Evolution, and Creationism. It’s a quick 54-page read on how evolution is the “only tested, comprehensive scientific explanation for the nature of the biological world today that is supported by overwhelming evidence and widely accepted by the scientific community.”
It’s a great read and I encourage everyone to take a peek. You can go to their site and register to download it for free or grab it locally here to save yourself the hassle :)
The reason I posted this article today was due to an email I received from Scott in Oklahoma. Scott claims that evolution is baseless and has little supporting evidence if any at all.
Even though I here this often, it still shocks me that in this day and age people refuse to accept what countless independent researchers from every faith, race, and culture have tested and come to accept. It truly is baffling.
Take a gander at Scott’s email and see what you think. To me this is like arguing that Earth is flat and not accepting the fact that we have seen the planet from space much less circumnavigated it :)
Please be thoughtful and thorough in your responses. Maybe we can enlighten just one person :)
Scott from Oklahoma writes:
Hey,
I’ve read through some of your site and see the usual excuses and focus on people’s opinions. My question is have you really considered what is true. It’s easy to say something is not true if you see corruption, ignorance, abuse and a host of other anomalies within a movement or religion. That’s just an excuse to not believe something. Don’t make the mistake of associating these religious shortcomings with the truth.
Whether you and I agree or not does not change the truth. I hope you would at least agree that there is an absolute in this world. If not then I’m talking to the wrong person. It’s interesting to hear your discussions of evolution and how un-scientific the creation story is. I guess those same nagging questions within the “religion” of evolution about lack of scientific evidence don’t ever come up. Like those silly Laws of Physics and how they get in the way of evolution religion. Oh well, what’s a little matter being destroyed or created for the sake of a religion that makes it easier to deny God. Yeah, I can really see how the universe is getting more organized at the same time it is becoming less organized.
It’s just amazing that someone of reasonable intelligence like yourself can buy into a theory that was eventually abandoned by the ones that came up with the whole thing. If I were you I’d really look at this whole evolution religion thing a little more closely. I personally think you’ve been duped and hate to see you misled. Maybe start with logical questions like where are all the remains, fossils, etc of the actual trans-species of animals or humans. I guess I’ve missed out on all the amphimammals out there or the dino-birds that we’ve dug up. Not that I’m denying there were dinosaurs. Just questioning that everything came from a few central life forms.
Oh yeah, if the evolution theory of natural selection actually happens then how after millions or billions of years or whatever the latest guess is, how are there still weaker species of animals that are predated on by stronger species. Seems like they would all be gone. Oh well, again these are just pesky questions that don’t have to be considered when you believe in a religion like evolution. Unless you can prove that evolution is true (you can’t because it’s a theory) then if you believe in it, it’s a religion to you. Oh, wait a minute you don’t believe in religion. That’s a serious problem I think. Good Luck!
Scott
PS I tried to be smart and answer your challenge question with a silly answer,
but you got me.
Related posts:
- Evolution Vs Creationism - Family Guy Style
- Let’s Help Anjelica With Her Homework
- Illiterates Rejoice Over Darwin’s Free Audio Book
- Atheist Ricky Gervais On Creationism
- Christians Should Walk Their Talk And Not Squawk
January 10th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
This is the same crap thats been regurgitated a million times before. People like this don’t really want to learn about evil things like “facts” or “reality”. No matter how many times you point at the facts (I bet you could even try that literally) they will just close their eyes and cover their ears.
January 10th, 2008 at 1:21 pm
Ugh.
People like Scott exist because crap like http://www.thetruthproject.org/ exists. Crap like that exists because people are ignorant but like to be told that they are right anyway and will pay good money for the opportunity.
You know, I don’t have a problem with people not being sure about evolution and asking questions about it. That’s perfectly fine. The problem is, they never ask the right people. If you want to know something about evolution, go ask a damn biologist; don’t go to your church’s designated EvilutionDebunkerologist.
My church is currently going through the aforementioned “Truth Project,” and it is maddening. It sets up only straw men, knocks them down, and then acts as if it’s accomplished something and everyone in the congregation gets to feel a little more smug and assured that they’re part of the group that has everything right.
Ugh.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
Hey Scott,
you lack an understanding of Evolution. I don’t mean to say that there is some kind of secret that biologists keep to themselves and that’s why you don’t understand it, nor do I want to seem like I’m making an excuse. You simply do not understand it (there’s no shame in that, I’m not trying to be patronizing)
You asked why all the weak creatures haven’t died out already; this is probably because you have heard the motto “Only the strong survive”. Regardless of your reasons for thinking this, it’s not true. “Weaker” creatures continue to survive because they have evolved strategies for surviving, such as increased amount of young born, or camouflage, and the list goes on. Strictly speaking, so long as a species can find a way to keep reproducing, they will continue to survive.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
From the Oxford English Dictionary, THE definitive source for the English language (subscription required):
WRT Theory of Evolution
Theory: 4. a. A scheme or system of ideas or statements held as an explanation or account of a group of facts or phenomena; a hypothesis that has been confirmed or established by observation or experiment, and is propounded or accepted as accounting for the known facts; a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed. (definition used by the scientific community; predates Darwin)
WRT Theory of Creationism
Theory: 6. In loose or general sense: A hypothesis proposed as an explanation; hence, a mere hypothesis, speculation, conjecture; an idea or set of ideas about something; an individual view or notion. Cf. 4. (usage of this definition post-dates Darwin; first used as a facetious comment that later evolved into acceptance as a definition)
In other words, the Theory of Evolution is NOT a hypothesis, whereas, the Theory of Creationism IS. Proponents of Creationism misuse and abuse the English language.
The English language is a living language that continues to evolve.
Case in point, how many people today know that ‘faggot’ originally meant “1. A bundle of sticks, twigs, or small branches of trees bound together for use as fuel.” Subsequently it evolved to refer to (in order) heretics burned at the stake; a bundle of steel/iron rods; a term of abuse and contempt for women; A person temporarily hired to supply a deficiency at the muster, or on the roll of a company or regiment, a dummy; and, in 1914, it finally came into use as slang for a male homosexual. Quite the journey, no?
January 10th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
I should probably also mention that the first written usage of faggot was c1300, indicating it was in oral usage prior to that.
January 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Wow, that email actually made me angry. Apparently I haven’t been on this site long enough.
January 10th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
AggieCowboy: for some reason I want to reply as “hehe, hehe, he said oral”
Let’s be thankful for one thing — while Scott’s email wasn’t exactly insightful, it was at least a little bit entertaining. If only more of the world’s self-imposed ignorant masses would be so kind…
Andy
January 10th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Snurp:
Welcome to my world man. Scott’s comments rank up there with some of the most ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical ones I’ve ever heard. If you don’t understand what it is you’re talking about, don’t offer opinion on, or use it to emphasize your point.
Bottom line for me on the battle between Science vs. Faith: The “real” Truth can be proved wrong.
I seriously think we should take away religious people’s access to technology; you know, until they learn to properly respect the process that created it.
January 10th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
Andyr,
LOL! Go right ahead! After I saw it posted I thought “OMG! Major Freudian slip”. :*)
January 10th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
What a great booklet! And very beautifully designed, I might add.
I especially encourage everyone to read the FAQ at the end, which is very fair to the religious majority who have no problem with evolution.
January 10th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
AggieCowboy, you guys continue to misuse the english language, just as Shaze does.
“The English language is a living language that continues to evolve”
The main reason it continues to evolve is the minds like Shaze that evolve the english language it is now case in point, that you used faggot and gay,
because minds like Shaze “comments rank up there with some of the most ignorant, arrogant and hypocritical ones I’ve ever heard”. why do you say this you are the one that is doing exactly you just said.
So, why is there arrogance, etc… lets look at faggot and see how far we have made the english language it is today. people we have become gods in ourselves because we ourselves have turned away from the truth in Jesus words.
we have turned faggot into something as simple as a lie.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:16 pm
Howdy all,
Hyrocket, I am not sure exactly what you are trying to say here. Could you clarify a little. How does the etymology of the word faggot have anything to do with being a god and turning away from Jesus. (for the record I was never “turned towards” him) Finally explain how the word faggot has become a lie.
Cheers
Simon Bond
January 10th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
I view the word “faggot” in the same light as “nigger”. We should all have the right to say it, but if your stupid enough to say it in the wrong company you don’t have the right to not have bad things result.
January 10th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
hyrocket,
HUH? You need to work on your language skills. You don’t make sense.
English IS a living language that is continually evolving. New words are added, old words take on new definitions with contemporary users. ALL living languages evolve over time, there’s no stopping evolution. HOWEVER, we must also understand the ORIGINS and ALTERNATE definitions of the words we use. It’s pragmatic, not arrogant. Ignorance leads to misunderstanding and mistranslation…as in Theory of Evolution. I used ‘faggot’ as an extreme example of how a word’s meaning can radically change over time.
In contrast, Latin is considered a DEAD language that remains static. However, when it was in active, everyday usage, it too evolved. This makes translating difficult as the era of the original work and word usage among the author’s contemporaries must be accounted for. It is also why there is so much controversy among Biblical scholars regarding translations. It’s not as simple as plugging the phrase into google translator and clicking ‘translate’.
For what it’s worth, I haven’t turned away from the truth in JC’s words. I turned away from the hypocrisy of Christianity and its finite, man-made god because they have forgotten the truth in JC’s words.
January 10th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Irishthunder,
I totally agree. I’m especially not keen on the current trend of usage within the respective communities. I understand taking back the word and robbing it of its negativity. However, when members of a specific community still view usage of the word by “outsiders” as derogatory, it defeats the purpose.
January 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
“truth” eh? urgh, i really hate the way these fundies seem to love interpreting(twisting) even the dictionary definitions of words like they do their bible/koran/torah etc.
this is GOLD though:
“Just questioning that everything came from a few central life forms.”
what, as opposed to say genesis where we are all decendent from adam and eve, or cain (as abel was killed)? ROFLMAO!. details, schmetails…
January 11th, 2008 at 1:04 am
Hey Everyone,
Wow, lots of comments on my email. I have to agree with Simon on the whole word discussion. Not sure how that applies. Anyway, interesting comments, however I still go back to my original comments on seeking truth for ourselves. Most of you told me I am wrong and called me names, but I don’t see any facts or true debate in your responses. What do you really believe and yes there is an ulitmate truth. I am sincerely interested in this subject and not seeking to belittle anyone or start a fight. I do however, enjoy healthy debate and good discussion.
I have one question about this subject also. If you believe there is no God why spend so much time discussing religion and others quest to find Him? If this is all an illusion and we just end when we die then why waste your time debating religion? Truly interested…..
Scott
January 11th, 2008 at 1:06 am
Hey Jayman,
Adam and Eve were actually humans and so are you and I. If you ended up as a cat or pig and I was a hippo then you might have a point.
Scott
January 11th, 2008 at 1:26 am
scott, the fact is all the crap you spewed has been thrown at us before, and it’s very tiring having to explain it to you all. the fact is you will continue to live in blissful ignorance because you really don’t want a discussion, you just want to peach and belly-ache. No amount of evidence will EVER be enough for idiots like you.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:13 am
irishthunder,
I think you need to work on your reading comprehension skills. Do you see any preaching in my comments? No, so don’t you dare lump me in with a bunch of Christian fakes who believe an institutional church is their savior and that pastors are there to rule over them. I think you’re the one belly-aching because you don’t know the answers. If you can’t participate because of your lack of knowledge then that’s not my problem.
Now, my point is you don’t have evidence to get evolution past a theory. I read the aforementioned book and it is what I expected. A bunch of “this suggests” and “biologists hypothesize” comments that show they don’t really know. Please, if you’re hanging your eternity on a fish that has different length legs then you need to wake up. I want to puke when I hear these so-called scientists make comments about the beginning of the universe and just casually mention that hydrogen atoms fused with helium atoms. Well, we don’t know how that happened but it had to be because of evolution. That’s a bunch of BS and they know it. If I read the comment that “most scientists agree” one more time I’m going to scream. Most scientists are the ones that agree with their garbage science. I read through the whole thing and there is very little actual substance. All they did was name the things that God created and tried to explain it as evolution. Matter just magically appeared from a infinitesimal. Give me a break guys. All they showed is that life can adapt to it’s surroundings and that it’s way more complex than they can understand or explain. Are you really going to hang your hat on something so weak? Sorry, I just care that we accept things as fact because someone wrote a book about it.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:52 am
“Sorry, I just care that we accept things as fact because someone wrote a book about it.”
Someone wrote the bible too, the difference is the book Charles Darwin wrote brought forth ideas and theories that are open in the scientific community to be proved or disproved.
preach: to exhort in an officious or tiresome manner
check Merriam-Webster
January 11th, 2008 at 2:59 am
If you really wanted to find the truth you’d actually actively go out and seek knowledge. But I doubt you really care about becoming less of a close-minded fool. One thing you should remember thought:
Reality is not a democracy.
January 11th, 2008 at 3:33 am
Scott,
I also would “want to puke when I hear these so-called scientists make comments about the beginning of the universe and just casually mention that hydrogen atoms fused with helium atoms. Well, we don’t know how that happened but it had to be because of evolution.” I’d puke because why the hell would a scientist lump evolution together with astronomy? Ridiculous!
Seriously though, you’ll have a hard time having a meaningful debate with the people here if you haven’t actually studied evolution enough to know that it has nothing to do with the “big bang”. The “Big Bang Theory” is posited and discussed by astronomers. The “Theory of Evolution” is by biologists. They really don’t have much to do with each other at all.
“Matter just magically appeared from a infinitesimal. Give me a break guys.” This kind of statement is the problem. If you want to debate evolution, please make your arguments about evolution. Please read Darwin and tell me on which page he talks about astronomy. He doesn’t. The Theory of Evolution is only concerned with the prorogation of life on Earth. How the Universe came to be is not covered in its limited scope.
Please feel free to not believe in the Big Bang and also feel free to not believe in Evolution, just don’t confuse the two. It’s a bit like saying, “I don’t like pineapples because I don’t like apples.” It seems reasonable to someone ignorant of fruit, but ridiculous to anyone whose eaten them.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:54 am
Long time reader, first time poster. Please be gentle.
I’m not an evolutionary biologist but have done a fair bit of science during and after my University days.
What do you mean by truth? To me truth is the observations of the Universe around us. Evolution is an example of this truth as it has been comprehensively and repeatedly observed and tested. Sure the Theory of Evolution (which is separate from the facts of Evolution) cannot be declared a fact, but it is an explanation of all the facts we have. It explains a very large collection of facts. Until/If someone can provide a better explanation for all those facts, the scientific community will stick with it. Even if an alternative came forward it would still need to explain the facts we already have such as genetics.
What do you mean by absolute truth? To me an absolute truth is that the Universe exists.
It is absurd to refer to evolution (fact or theory) as a religion. It’s all about the evidence, no faith required. I like to think of Evolution as consisting of 3 aspects:
1) Evolution is a collection of facts that have been observed.
2) The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how Evolution works. That is how life came to be the way it is today. It is based on all the evidence. More evidence is constantly coming in, and so far it has all fit the Theory. Get back to me if that changes.
3) Evolutionary History is the particular path that evolution took on this planet over the last ~4 billion years. When we discover more details about these paths (discovery of a ‘missing link’) that doesn’t change the Theory of Evolution. It is unlikely that we will ever have a full picture of this aspect as the evidence is long gone.
Please detail which Law of Physics that evolution (any aspect) conflicts with?
You’ll have to explain what you mean here. It sounds like you are making a claim about evolution that it doesn’t actually make.
I couldn’t care less if Darwin reverted back to his religious upbringing near the end of his life. Though no one who was with him in his final months and days claimed he abandoned the ideas he proposed. The reason I accept Evolution is not because some dude called Charles said so. I accept it because of the mountains of evidence it is based upon. Most of it collected since Darwin’s time. When Darwin wrote about his ideas, they were at best an hypothesis. It was only later that sufficient evidence and refinement occurred to propose the scientific theory of evolution.
Why do you expect there to be a full set of fossils? Fossils are very rare. That fact doesn’t change anything. The lack of fossils doesn’t put doubt on the Theory of Evolution. At best the lack of a full set of fossils is that the full Evolutionary History may never be known. Can you provide the fossils of the last 10 generations of your own family? Assuming you can’t, that doesn’t prove you are not the descendant of your (great * 10) grandfather.
Many species that are alive today show signs of their ancestry more than other related species. For example the duck billed platypus is a mammal (it has traits unique to mammals such as mammary glands), but also shows many traits that are found in lizards. Just look at all fish, lizards, birds and mammals. We all have very similar biology. We all have basically the same organs, that work in basically the same way, laid out in basically the same configuration (head, spine, limbs, brain, lungs, heart, veins, muscles etc). They are little more than different configurations of the same thing. Each having been optimized for particular environments (Natural Selection)
It’s not a guess. Again we rely on evidence. As more evidence comes in the approximation becomes more precise
That’s a claim that Natural Selection does NOT make. Please try reading more about it.
Many predators and prey have a balanced relationship. If the predators get too good, they’ll run out of food and die out. There is a reason why predators typically have far fewer offspring than prey. Because predators having too many is an evolutionary disadvantage, where as prey have an evolutionary advantage to have as many as possible.
If you have any questions about the actual evidence of Evolution or claims of Evolutionary Theory feel free to ask, and we will attempt to answer them for you.
Cheers
Dane
January 11th, 2008 at 10:20 am
What sort of english is that then? Perhaps a bastardized version of american english!! Charles Darwin will LEARN me.
Maybe that Darwin can ‘learn’ me to write a ‘teached’
english, or am I missing the point?
January 11th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Scott, the reason so many of us do not want to debate you (or at least the reason I don’t feel like it) is because we can already see your answer. What irritated me so much was not the content of your email (I’ve seen it too many times before to care), it was the sheer condescension. “Well obviously evolution is completely stupid, look at (insert random twisted argument here). How silly!” Obviously it’s not possible that you are missing some information or have misinterpreted the claim. If you want a reasonable response in most places you don’t talk like that.
Of course, this is Religious Freaks, and many of us are more reasonable than most, and so you still got a response above. But I don’t expect you to accept it, because you say things like “and yes there is an ulitmate truth”. So no, you don’t really want the whole issue, because you already have strong assumptions about what is right and wrong in a way that will control the outcome for you. If the argument resulted in there not being some sort of grand design, ultimate truth, etc. you would obviously not accept it, no matter how strong the argument. Really, then, what’s the point? Also,
“If you believe there is no God why spend so much time discussing religion and others quest to find Him? If this is all an illusion and we just end when we die then why waste your time debating religion?”
Because you people vote.
P.S. I myself would normally be nicer, but for some reason my patience has been wearing thin lately. Ah well.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
“Because you people vote.”
Snurp, I gotta say that is by far the best response to that oh-so frequently posed question. I’m gonna have to borrow that.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“Because you people vote.”
Ditto on borrowing that.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
OK, many comments and I’ll try to respond, but I want to point out that I am not close-minded. I didn’t grow up in a church or form my opinions based on what someone told me. I have in fact done a lot of digging and I really want to know. Thus, my spending time talking with you guys. I actually read the book that gasmonso started this subject with.
Andrew, I agree with you and I wondered the same thing when I read the Science, Evolution and Creationism book. I understand there is a difference, but they seemed to use the “Big Bang” as supporting evidence of evolution. It certainly seems the start would be an important part of evolution, but they brought it up not me. Please don’t get mad at me because I only brought it up because it was in the book. Have you actually read the book?
irishthunder, It seems that you would explore all the possibilities before making a final decision on how life came to pass. I want to know more about evolution and it’s assumptions not to strengthen my case against it, but to test what I believe in. Not just to take something as fact because I read it. I think you’re guilty of the very thing you have accused me of. You’re close-minded to any questions or ideas that go against what you have already decided is fact. Did you form your opinions because you spent a lot of time digging and studying or just because someone told you.
Dane, thanks for the detailed info. Based on my studies the “sequential order of fossils” is a major crux of Darwin’s original theory. The lack of fossil evidence is problematic. Even with the rarity of fossils a certain percentage should show those crossover species that span the genetic lines. Next, “Natural Selection” is assumed to occur by genetic mutation and the book above mentions that. However, there is no scientific evidence that new genetic information can be added. The mutation is always in a downward direction. Mutations typically weaken not strenghten an individual. However, to me the biggest issue with this theory is the “irreducible complex system” that cannot be explained. In other words Darwin said that change occurs in small steps and not in large leaps as was the theory when Darwin developed the evolution theory. The problem here is that we run out of time. To develop and actually change these complex systems would take trillions of years to occur because of the probability factor. Even Darwin admitted that some systems were too complex to explain only by length of time towards development. Some systems had to have originated in ways other than genetic change over time. A single cell is basically designed like a tiny electric motor. It has several different parts and they all work together. In order for the cell to develop each part would need to “happen” separately. Then all the parts would have to just somehow get together after they have reached their final configuration. Doesn’t seem likely to me anyway. When I read some of the new discoveries in biological sciences I see more evidence that there was an intelligent being that put these systems together than for something so complex to just happen.
January 11th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Hey snurp,
I hear your pain dude. I know you won’t believe me, but I do attempt to process info without my preconceived notions kicking in. There are parts of evolution that are just fact and I don’t discount those. Many of the genetic discoveries made are just fact and make sense. There are certainly powerful abilities within life forms to make changes depending on environment and situation. I’m not trying to discount that. It just seems some of the evolution science requires jumping to conclusions when there are gaps in between. Maybe I’m talking with emotion here.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:15 pm
Dane,
I forgot to answer your question about the Law of Physics. Actually, it’s the second Law of Thermodynamics that says all things experience atropy or become less structured and deteriorate over time. Scientists cannot get past this problem of physics because many of the basic concepts within evolution are in direct opposition to this law. Talking about evolution being a religion, one scientist says that evolution overcame this irrefutable law by “magical powers”. Jeremy Rifkin wrote the following:
“The Entropy Law says that evolution dissipates the overall available energy for life on this planet. Our concept of evolution is the exact opposite. We believe that evolution somehow magically creates greater overall value and order on earth.”
Sounds like religion to me.
Another evolutionist, George Stavropolous, wrote in American Scientist:
“Yet, under ordinary conditions, no complex organic molecule can ever form spontaneously, but will rather disintegrate, in agreement with the second law. Indeed, the more complex it is, the more unstable it will be, and the more assured, sooner or later, its disintegration. Photosynthesis and all life processes, and even life itself, cannot yet be understood in terms of thermodynamics or any other exact science, despite the use of confused or deliberately confusing language.”
Wait a minute, I thought evolution was all about science!
January 11th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Be honest. You just pulled that out of your ass, didn’t you? If it weren’t for the fact that you actually typed it and still submitted the comment, I’d think nobody could really believe that, but since you said it…
All a mutation does is change the individual. That’s it. That statement says dick about whether or not the change will strengthen or weaken. Further, you may be spot on, but it doesn’t even matter. If, out of 100 mutations, 99 ‘weaken’ the individual and only 1 strengthens, so what? All evolution says about it is that the expectation is that the weakened offspring have less of a chance of surviving and propagating the mutation than the ’strengthened’ offspring. Whether mutations ‘typically’ weaken or strengthen doesn’t even matter.
Further, your use of the word ‘weaken’ is absolutely meaningless without context. What does it mean? In one context, being born with a mutation that causes you to be smaller than your siblings would likely be a ‘weakening’ if it limits your ability to defend yourself. On the other hand, if it enables you to get away more quickly and/or hide in places your predators can’t access it’s a ’strengthening’ mutation.
You speak of irreducible complexity. Sigh. This is a common false dichotomy. You assume (falsely) that the only possible existence for a cell is it’s current form — it’s either complete or it doesn’t exist. On what empirical data do you base this statement? Sure, a skin cell may not be a skin cell if any of it’s properties change. That doesn’t mean that the mutated version might not be useful in some other context.
One of the most common ‘examples’ of irreducible complexity is the eyeball, and for that I refer you to Richard Dawkins.
You also refer to Darwin’s own warning that if any system could be shown to be complex enough that it could not possibly have arisen from subsequent tiny changes that his theory would be in trouble. That’s the great thing about science, though. Even if you could produce something to fit his test, all it would do is tell scientists to start looking for new tweaks to the theory. Tweaks like, I don’t know, big changes instead of small. A single gene can have massive effect.
January 11th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Scott,
“Have you actually read the book?” Yes. And nowhere in it does it confuse the big bang theory with the theory of evolution. It mentions the big bang theory as the currently accepted theory of how the earth was configured in such a way that evolution was possible. But it never says that they are part of the same theory.
Evolution is like icing on a cake. The cake could have been baked or bought at a store. Either of those would have set up the conditions for icing to be possible.
The reason many people get confused is because the opposing view of Creationism covers the entire timescale of the universe. It attempts to refute both the big bang and evolutionary theories at once. If a practitioner finds any inconstancies in one thoery they claim it applies to both. This is a logicaly fallicy. It is the equivalent of saying that because the cake tastes bad, the icing must taste bad too.
If you wish to debate the astronomical origins of the Earth, do so on the merits of the Big Bang theory. If you wish to debate the origins and evolution of life on Earth, do so on the merits of Evolution. When someone mixes the two together, it just shows that person’s bias or lack of comprehension. I prefer to believe that people do this out of ignorance. The alternative is that they understand the difference and are deliberately doing it to be dishonest and malicious.
On a separate note, the reason that I debate on these forums is the same reason that politicians debate on TV: to influence the undecided. I believe I have a moral obligation to make the world a better place, and one way I know how to do that is to help the people sitting on the fence realize that it’s time to give up on mythology and use their time and money to help their fellow humans.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Mike S,
Oh brother, are you way off base or what.
“Whether mutations ‘typically’ weaken or strengthen doesn’t even matter.”
You must be kidding me right? That’s the whole basis for “Natural Selection”. If it doesn’t matter then why is it even discussed in evolution. You don’t make sense dude.
Your response is exactly what I’m talking about. If scientific evidence doesn’t line up with evolution then lets just change it. That would be the tweaks you’re talking about. Tweaks is a laughable word when used in a response to scientific evidence. Sounds just like the magical comment. Like I said evolution “is” a religion and your blind faith can’t let you see otherwise.
PS. You didn’t comment on the Law of Thermodynamics.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
I warn you now, this is an epic post.
Since we’ve moved onto a better plane here,
When it comes to entropy, the rule that makes evolution work in the sense you are looking at it is that Earth is not a closed system. Energy moves in from the Sun, and lots of it. In the universe as a whole, entropy may be increasing, but that does not equal a statement of increasing entropy for every part (which, given the size of the universe, is a lot of parts). Also, if this entropy is increasing (which of course the second law says it is), then it’s doing so rather slowly assuming the belief that the universe is billions of years old. Everything won’t necessarily be moving towards a tangible disaster in our or even our whole species’ lifetimes.
Furthermore, the quote involving entropy you offered has incredibly vague uses of ‘energy,’ ‘value,’ and ‘order.’ What does ‘value’ in terms of evolutionary advantage have to do with ‘energy’ in an entropic sense? This is Dane’s criticism in a nutshell.
For complexity, you say that it would take trillions of years to get good results; was that a serious use of ‘trillions,’ or just using a large number? It matters here, because geology tells us we have billions of years. Also, think generations, not years. We tend to think of change in terms of years, and furthermore in terms of human lifetimes, which are unusually long on the scale of life on Earth. Individual cells often live hours; countless species on earth don’t live much longer. For many species, then, over one year you could have a thousand generations or more. What happens then? Look at the history of diseases, viruses, and strains of bacteria overcoming counter-medications and antibiotics. The odds suddenly don’t look so far from this scale.
The Big Bang relating to evolution: it doesn’t. (Note: This was covered while I was typing this, but I’ll leave what I have anyway.) It’s another scientific theory in a completely different area. If someone says otherwise they are wrong. The Big Bang is an attempt to explain how matter, energy, etc. first moved towards their current state. The theory about evolution is about how populations interact, how certain populations continue to survive when others don’t etc. It is absolutely imperative to differentiate what evolution does and does not claim. Often people don’t make this distinction, and you get what I call scientism instead of science, which is a problem. Evolution in its most basic form does not talk about origins, entropy, etc.; it simply says, in a sentence, that “things that cannot survive don’t, and things that can survive do.”
Fossils: assuming here that life has been on Earth for about two billion years or so, there have been perhaps quadrillions of individual living things that have died here. Where are they now? Well, what happens when something dies? If it has no “strong” tissue, i.e. tissue that survives the most basic elements and other species, it will never be heard from again. This probably covers 99.99% of all life, the cellular species, most invertebrates, etc. What about those with bones/exoskeletons/etc? Well, how is a fossil made? A dinosaur, for example, dies. It’s bones are picked at and broken up by scavengers. Nothing left for fossils, end of story. This covers a good sized chunk of what is left. Another dino dies and it is not picked apart. It dies where the bones are left exposed to oxygen and slowly disintegrate. No fossils, end of story. To become a fossil a strong enough structure to be preserved at all has to be coincidentally left in conditions where it will in short time be buried in a place where oxygen and any and all corrosive materials have no access to it, without any conditions changing long enough for minerals to take the proper form and then with them surviving long enough to be found. Sounds virtually impossibly, no? Explains why we haven’t (and will likely never) found a fraction of the fossils that could have been, but given the sheer number of living things there have been, there is likely to be something. And there is.
Crossover species: some would say that we have crossover species. They would simply show you that chart of man (all of the pictures of which are species that have been identified, the names aren’t just there for giggles) and be done with it. In other cases the above paragraph suffices. The rest can be covered by a better understanding of ‘mutation.’
Mutation: “Mutations typically weaken not strenghten an individual.” This is true when you’re talking about survival odds. Mutations are in any tangible sense random. Animals don’t choose. So, let’s take a population of rats. One rat, one day, is born without a vital hormone. Oops. He dies. Another is born without kidneys. He dies. This is probably how most mutations turn out. Then, lo and behold, one is born with eyes of super sight! But he gets eaten at one day old. Damn. Then another is born with webbed feet. He survives to adulthood, and his improved swimming skills allow him to escape predators more easily. He survives, reproduces, and…nothing. His trait was uninheritable. But let’s say another is born with webbed feet. His trait is inheritable, however, and so he has webbed offspring. As their odds are better than those around them, they survive more often, start having more and more offspring, and behold! The “North American Plain-toed Rat” is replaced, in a sense, by the “North American Webbed-toed Rat!” Now, where is the point where one species becomes another? Meh. Nature doesn’t really care, and the naming systems of scientists aren’t necessarily reflecting some reality in a “law of species,” either. What I’m saying is that you must make sure not to make arbitrary distinctions between species without being aware of it. All the different varieties of rats are in many ways quite similar, after all. Other things to take from this are that (1) mutations occur, on an individual scale, in jumps. The idea of a rat’s feet slowly becoming more and more webbed is indeed strange and even more unlikely than my example above, though certainly not impossible. (2) Wow are these odds bad! Why we’d need billions or even trillions of generations for life to go from single celled to what it is now! Indeed. Remember, generations, not years.
Other points: (1) Don’t conflate evolution (or science for that matter) with Darwin in particular or any scientists in particular. You’ll notice that in science, as compared to other fields, considerably less attention is given to the history and/or great innovators. Sure, we know who Newton is, but his theory is outdated. Likewise, we all know Darwin, but he wasn’t infallible.
(2) Remember what “science” is and what a “theory” is. Theories are not definite; they are not meant to be. But they are also our knowledge. Science, properly done, does not claim the ultimate handle on nature. It claims to have the best explanation given the evidence at hand. Anything outside the evidence is conjecture, and anything inside the evidence is, as I put it, provisional truth. Newton may have been wrong, but cars were built based on Newtonian mechanics, and they still work. Newton was later replaced by Einstein because Einstein seemed to not only explain what Newton explained but also some things that Newton could not. Should someone else appear and replace Einstein, so be it. And always remember, a lack of an explanation is an argument for saying that we lack an explanation and nothing more. Argument from ignorance is indeed a fallacy, and with good reason.
That’s all for now.
And to all those who likely my line about voting: I saw when I typed it that, yes, that one would be special. You have my permission to use it. Just remember, payments go to my street address, not PO Box.
January 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
Scott,
Do you even know who Jeremy Rifkin and George Stavropolous are? These are just common quotes that religious sites plaster all over their sites because it supports their cause. Do a little research and you’ll see how insignificant their words are.
For example, Jeremy Rifkin is nothing more than an American economist who writes and does public speaking. His education is in economics. He’s certainly not a qualified source for evolutionary biology.
As for George Stavropoulos it was more difficult finding information on him. He’s appears to be a chemical engineer of sorts from Greece. I tried to find any published works with respects to evolution and I came up with nothing. As a matter of fact the only thing I could find was a paper entitled, “HIGH ACTIVITY CARBON SORBENTS FOR MERCURY CAPTURE“.
Honestly Scott, you are just combing the creation sites and finding random quotes from unqualified people who support your belief. At least admit that you didn’t even know who Rifkin and Stavropoulos were when you cut/pasted those quotes.
This is why many of my readers get annoyed with creationists. They do not have any supporting evidence that God created us from thin air. That is why religious folks have faith. There simply is no proof. It’s a belief that goes back to a time when science couldn’t explain the things around us. Every culture and religion has their own creation story to explain the unexplainable. It’s perfectly natural and acceptable for humans to do this. But what is NOT acceptable is to ignore advances in science and understanding.
There was a time when Christianity was certain that the Earth was flat and that everything revolved around it. To disagree with that could have been fatal. We laugh now at such an ignorant belief, but lets face it… the Earth seems flat and everything does seem to rotate around us. It seemed absurd that the planet was round because wouldn’t the people on the other side fall off because they’re upside down? And obviously everything rotates around us because I don’t feel like we’re moving. But science proved the church wrong and eventually the church conceded.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that just because we haven’t fully explained our existence doesn’t prove that there is a God. I know it’s difficult to imagine that such a complex world could be the result of just a big explosion and billions of years of evolution… it can sound a little “crazy.” But then again, it sounded crazy not too long ago that the Earth could be round and that we are moving around the Sun at 67,000 MPH… but it’s true :)
Regards,
gasmonso
January 11th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Andrew,
You’ve now made it clear to us all that Big Bang and evolution are two separate theories. (I never said they were the same by the way.)
I probably was not clear and I apologize. The study of the entire process of Big Bang to Human development is called cosmic evolution. Granted the biological portion has different facets, but there are also commonalities since life is based on what happened at the particulate level. What I should have said was that if scientists can’t prove a hypothesis or can’t explain the concept they naturally revert to the evolution concept. Meaning things just happened versus an intentional ignition of the chain of events that created life. You basically said the same thing in your comment:
“It mentions the big bang theory as the currently accepted theory of how the earth was configured in such a way that evolution was possible.”
January 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
Scott,
I have read all the posts down to this point, and there have been some great ones. Dane’s lengthly post is a great explanation of Evolution in genreal (Theory and factual evidence.). Every point you have made so far has been countered validly, and you continue to post either nonsensical or ignorant new claims. Yes, scientists cannot explain everything, and most likely will never be able to, this is not proof of God, no matter how hard you look. I am sorry Science is explaining away everything attributed to your religious figure. Take a look at where you are getting your information from, in fact, please post your sources, because they are steering you in such a way that is making you look stupid (I mean this in the nicest possible way, you are obviously being mis-informed). Entropy? Seriously? Are creationists still waving that flag around? I’m sorry I don’t want to insult you, but you should probably stop posting retorts without first at least googling them. (wow)
- Quintalis
January 11th, 2008 at 3:53 pm
Scott:
I appreciate your civility, and I am convinced that you may actually be sincere. But I have to question whether your goal here is attainable. Most of the posters here accept that theories such as evolution and the big bang are almost certainly WRONG on certain points, but that they are almost certainly correct on the big picture. That is one of the main parts of the scientific method - discover where your theories are wrong, accept that there is a problem there, and try to learn from it and move forward. Try taking the same approach in a church and you may be tarred and feathered (or worse, in some cultures)!
I wish that religious folks in general would not see evolution as a threat to their “ultimate truth”. I don’t deserve to be shouted down or demonized for accepting a scientific theory that can, by and large, be proven by empirical observation and study. Evolution is not the ultimate truth. There are bigger questions. And we are ok with that. But the act of denying evolution is part of the ultimate lie. Scott — worship, be happy, procreate, pray — but please do not lie to yourself in defiance of observable truth. I’m no biblical scholar, but is that really what Jesus would want? Seriously?
Andy (not the same as Andrew — cheers!)
January 11th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Ok, Scott. Now you’re just being stupid.
My point about whether or not mutations ‘typically’ weaken or strengthen being unimportant absolutely stands. It may be that most of them do weaken, it may be that most of them strengthen. Regardless, the point of evolution and natural selection is NOT that any particular portion of mutations will be propagated, but that they should have some sort of evolutionary advantage to be expected to be propagated.
Please read the following slowly so as not to hurt yourself:
If 99% of all mutations have a net negative effect and do not get propagated, it does not negate the theory of evolution in any way. In fact, it reinforces the theory because the theory states that mutations that are beneficial will tend to be passed down to the next generation.
Then you really fell on your face responding to my other point.
My quote:
Your interpretation:
If I read that right, you think I’m suggestion to tweak the evidence. WTF? Where did I say that we should change evidence? I said we can change the theory. Not that I’m saying it needs it, I’m just saying that that’s how science works. When you have a theory, you test it. If you find conflicting evidence you go back to the drawing board and come up with a new, improved theory that fits the evidence.
If, however, I read that wrong and you object to the notion of a scientific theory being tweaked to fit new evidence, then… Jesus H. Christ, man. You just don’t get it. That’s what good science does. It adapts. It looks for theories that fit the evidence around it. It seeks to explain the natural world through empirical observations and testable theories.
I’m done with you.
January 11th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
gasmonso,
I appreciate your philosophical view of the subjects we have been discussing. I think you should know that most people including those that were not Christians thought the earth was flat. That’s not a Christian concept at all. I take issue with that statement and would remind you that the Bible does note that the earth is round.
I think the reason you guys get frustrated with creationists is the same reason creationists get frustrated with evolutionists. The design around us in life, the eco-system, even the layout of the universe and galaxies all point towards a predetermined plan. To say that it all happened by accident “out of thin air” seems a stretch at best don’t you think? Darwin merely advanced an already existing philosophy that man descended from animals. It’s nothing new and I see more concrete evidence for a creation model than evolution in new scientific discoveries.
I guess it’s your perspective at the time you learn new information. We haven’t even discussed the scientific evidence of creationism. You refer your readers to books that quote from Christian quacks that don’t speak for the true church. They are pandering idiots that are afraid to stand on what they believe. The Bible is clear that God created the universe by his spoken word and nothing happened by accident.
There are so many unexplained problems with evolution that it’s still amazing that you wholeheartedly fall for this stuff. No scientist that I’m aware of can even address the issue with the Law of Thermodynamics. Einstein was a creationist and was very comfortable that it lined up with the laws of physics. Can you say the same of evolution. As for searching creationism sites give me a break. Most of that boloney is not worth reading. The quotes came from an article by a Muslim intellectual named Adnan Aktar. He does a lot of research on these subjects and has written several articles for National Geographic and other magazines. I guess we can refute the legitimacy of anyone, but if they said it shouldn’t we consider it’s meaning? They do support the evolution theory, but at least they tried to address the problems with evolution. Most scientists won’t touch the subject because it goes against evolution theory.
I know it’s hard to see now, but someday you will see the truth. God is absolute and we will all see him in all his glory. I truly hope you and others recognize that and could just open your eyes to the evidence of his creation all around you. No, this all didn’t just happen by accident. From a mathematical standpoint the probability of that happening is incalculable. Can you prove something that is statistically impossible? Can I show you God? Well, no because I don’t have that power or ability. What I can show you is his plan and wonderful things he has done for us.
I think the most difficult thing for you would be to consider that you were actually created just the way you are by a God that really loves you. It’s scary but true….
January 11th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Scott,
I stopped reading your post at this point:
Scott.. listen to me very carefully. It is historically and factually accurate, that the church and all of christianity once believed that the earth was flat. The reason the current bible says it is round, is because it has been EDITED. Once again (I don’t know how many times this has been said but PLEASE LISTEN): The Theory of Evolution does not have anything to do with the origin of the universe. Parse that for a moment.. read it again… and again. The Theory of Evolution pretty m uch attempts to explain how we got from tiny little critters to where we are now, that’s it. That’s all it covers. (There are actually 2 seperate parts of the Theory of Evolution, Macro and Micro, but we will not get into that because you seem to not be able to grasp even the basics.) Tossing out questions like
are ridiculous. Of course we think it’s a stretch that things popped out of thin air. That’s why we LOOK and OBSERVE to try and figure out where we came from. Our best guess, so far, based on evidence, is that life happened somehow, (it is important to note that this section of my explanation has absolutely nothing to do with Evolution, and we really, really aren’t sure how life started in the first place.). It started as one-celled critters, and kept changing until it became us. That’s Evolution in a nutshell. To attempt to deny this happened is like saying 2+2 does not equal 4. Which brings me back to my original point. If you belive that copy of the Bible you hold in your hand to be the true word of God, this argument is over. It has been edited, translated, and changed so many times we aren’t even sure what it looked like at the start. If you believe that, you are a special kind of believer, one that cannot be convinced of anything other than his own truth. That’s ok, just realize that it’s your truth, and does not apply to the real world.
- Quintalis
January 11th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
I just realized you attempted to talk about Thermodynamics again. Scott, I am not a scientist.. but I can explain it to you. The second law of thermodynamics states explicityly:
The Earth is NOT a closed system. This law applies very strictly to CLOSED systems. There, I have explained it. END OF DISCUSSION ON THERMODYNAMICS.
- Quintalis
January 11th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I’m normally not a fan of the quote-response-quote-response layout, but I think it may be necessary here.
“The design around us in life, the eco-system, even the layout of the universe and galaxies all point towards a predetermined plan.”
That’s an assumption that we obviously don’t share, with your evidence apparently being how “obvious” it is. Unless, of course, we don’t share your assumption.
“You refer your readers to books that quote from Christian quacks that don’t speak for the true church.”
You read Gasmonso’s post, yes? If you know what I’m referring to, then let’s just drop the whole “name said this” thing and focus on arguments.
“There are so many unexplained problems with evolution that it’s still amazing that you wholeheartedly fall for this stuff.”
I believe that I, along with the others here, responded quite adequately to the problems you brought up. Have any more, by chance?
“No scientist that I’m aware of can even address the issue with the Law of Thermodynamics.”
We covered that one. More than once.
“Einstein was a creationist and was very comfortable that it lined up with the laws of physics.”
I covered that one. Einstein does not equal science. Neither does Darwin. Science is not people, but theories supported by evidence. Come to think of it, have you responded to anything I had in my post above? I hope I wasn’t just talking to myself.
“God is absolute and we will all see him in all his glory. I truly hope you and others recognize that and could just open your eyes to the evidence of his creation all around you.”
And so we’re back to where we started: God is right, I just wish you would see where your arguments are wrong (still waiting for the responses to my post).
“From a mathematical standpoint the probability of that happening is incalculable. Can you prove something that is statistically impossible?”
Really? The odds of everyone on Earth having the birthday that they do is somewhere around (1/365)^6,500,000,000…and yet, it is so! Also, what is statistically impossible? That we are here, now, by accident? Why is that?
January 11th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
I always find it interesting when someone uses the “everything is just so perfect for it not to be created by a god”.
But if you look at all the BILLIONS of planets and stars we can see in the universe, use see that we really are lucky that our planet has just the right conditions and that our ancestors had the capability to change along with the changing environment.
January 11th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
(Sorry for another long post)
Most religions and myths claimed that the earth was flat. This is because it appears that way when standing on it, and they didn’t have evidence to say otherwise. We now have evidence, a lot of evidence for this and many other aspects of nature.
The Bible also describes it as flat but that is beside the point. It was well known before Christianity split off from Judaism that the world was round, so for Christianity to use that is evidence of divine inspiration is wishful thinking.
You must see the universe differently to me. I see the results of natural processes.
Science doesn’t claim it happened by accident. We simply don’t know what happened before the Universe began. Science tries to understand the natural processes that exist in the universe and how they resulted in what we observe today. But claiming God did it just moves the problem rather than answering the question. The question becomes: where did God come from? Out of thin air?
I agree with you. Darwin was definitely not the first person to state that humans are animals. What was important about his work was that he combined ideas proposed by others, with his own observations while traveling the world, to produce a book that explained the concept to the general public.
Please provide evidence of creationism. I am genuinely interested in reading it.
I presume you are referring to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Using this argument shows that you don’t not understand what that Law actually states. The environment that scientists claim evolution occurred in is not covered by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics as the Earth is an open system (energy enters and leaves the system).
Please provide evidence of this claim. Even if it were true, so what?
Can you please provide links to this person’s articles?
Please provide evidence of this claim.
There have been thousands of different religions over the years. Each claims to be the one true religion. Can you please provide evidence of why your religion is more truthful than the others?
January 11th, 2008 at 8:16 pm
“Please provide evidence of this claim.”
Damnit Dane, all the evidence you need is in the bible. Thats because it was written by god, we know this because the bible tells us this. We know that the bible is right because it was written by god.
It all makes total sense.
January 11th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
@ Scott
You are no different than hyrocket or Mohammad. I really feel pity that you don’t have a support from them. Regarding your inspiration from Adnan Aktar, i really didn’t find any personality of this name who has written about evolution. May be you are referring to Adnan Oktar. And guess what folks what his background is. He has studied interior designing and that too he didn’t complete his course (i guess he found intelligent designing more useful to make a career). I think the below excerpt from wikipedia sums it all about his scientific background.
“In 1986, Adnan Oktar published the book, Judaism and Freemasonry. The book suggests that the principal mission of Jews and Freemasons in Turkey was to erode the spiritual, religious, and moral values of the Turkish people and, thus, make them like animals, as stated in what Oktar refers to as the “Distorted Torah.” [10] [11] Oktar asserts that “the materialist standpoint, evolution theory, anti-religious and immoral lifestyles were indoctrinated to the society as a whole” by Jews and Freemasons.” (Courtesy Wikipedia)
I still can’t believe that somebody is giving his thoughts as evidence against evolution. There ain’t more discussion with Scott.
January 12th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Scott,
I would recommend the following reading:
Schaum’s Outline of Probability and Statistics
I believe that a course in statistics should be required for every student and that adults who have not taken one should do so ASAP. Not only will it help you discover why advertising is full of pointless figures, casinos always make money, and why you should attack with 3 armies in RISK — it will also help you understand why the argument, “[...] this all didn’t just happen by accident[, f]rom a mathematical standpoint the probability of that happening is incalculable” is meaningless.
Arguing Well by John Shand
This book is about debate and logic. It’s a handbook that teaches how to avoid logical fallacy in your arguments. It also discusses the distinction between reasoning and rhetoric.
Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan
This book starts with cosmology, moves on to abiogenesis, and then to evolution. It also covers some philosophy on ethics and morals. It’s a gentler read than many books about these topics.
January 12th, 2008 at 1:47 pm
I scanned through some of the longer posts. They address Scott’s…confusion…quite well so I won’t add to those.
However, I will address his earlier comment about “matter magically appearing.” This isn’t magic. Matter and energy are interchangeable. It has been shown that when two atoms are accelerated and forced to collide, mass is not conserved. Instead, a small fraction of the mass is converted to pure energy.
On the other side, energy can be shown to have measurable momentum (mass X velocity) indicating that it must have mass which is a property of matter.
Remember Einstein’s famous equation, E=mc^2? It equates energy and mass, and is, for the most part, correct (it breaks down at the quantum level).
So, can matter “magically” appear? Yes. It can also “magically” disappear. Space can warp, the energies released are tightly compressed and condense into matter, matter and energy are further condensed until they reach critical mass, and a ‘big bang’ ensues.
In nuclear weapons, shaped explosives release energy which compresses the core of radioactive material to critical mass resulting in a massive, “uncontrolled” release of energy.
Changing matter to energy is easy as any reaction tends toward the highest level of entropy. While converting energy to matter is possible, energy must be applied to the system in order to create…order (heh, same word, same sentence, two different definitions…gotta love the language!).
January 12th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Phenomenal read guys. I am very pleased by the level of logical debate. Scott, you are putting some very interesting arguments to test. I am enjoying reading this entire thread.
Snurp, that post was epic. It did a very good job of explaining some things like mutation and fossils. I never thought about how hard it was for a usable fossil to form.
January 12th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Beats me why so many have an obsession with evolution when it is neither an argument for or against the existence of god. If there is one, he could have created the various rules of the universe including evolution.
The arguments over the existence of god as an abstract concept are pointless anyway unless you go further and believe in one who has a personal interest in our salvation. If god exists but has no interest in us and there is no afterlife then it would hardly matter if we believed or not. Toss a coin.
That is where the whole thing falls down for me, how is there a soul when a bang on the head can totally change us? how is there free will when we are so clearly the product of our biology, our natures and our upbringing? If, for the sake of argument, Islam was the one true religion, how does anyone brought up in a strict Christian household have a chance of salvation?
January 12th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
xoggoth,
Good questions. To me, Christianity (and Isalm, for that matter) is attempting to define the infinite in finite terms by creating god in man’s image. How can a supernatural, bipedal, male humanoid be infinite?
I don’t, and can’t, believe in such a limited version of the Creator, but I do believe in a Creator. The best definition I can come up with is that the Creator is All and All is the Creator. Each of us in our own right is part of the Creator, so, in a sense, we are indeed created in the Creator’s image. But, in a larger sense, so is everything else, natural and man-made.
It is not possible to truly “know” the Creator because the infinite can never be fully understood (elsewise, it would be finite). But as we observe, as we question, as we learn, as we evolve, we grow closer to the Creator. Death is not the end of life, just a transformation to another part of the Whole.
As humans, we like to place everything in nice, neat, little boxes for ease of definition and understanding. When we do this, however, we place blinders over our eyes and fail to see the Whole. Unfortunately, boxing is so ingrained in our psyche and our learning that it’s hard to unlearn. The cliche “Failing to see the forest for the trees” is appropo. You’re so intent on seeing the parts, you can’t see the whole.
Fortunately, we don’t have to understand the Whole to know it Exists. This is what it really means to have faith. But we should always be questioning that faith, never blindly accepting it. Questioning your faith leads to enlighenment; blindly following your faith only leads into darkness.
January 13th, 2008 at 8:55 am
AggieCowboy, actually faith really is blind acceptance.
January 13th, 2008 at 9:40 am
AggieCowboy, I assume your comment about a limited version of the creator means that there is not one true religion, perhaps that we could all reach him in different ways.
Fair enough in principle, but there is an obvious problem. When you depart from the dogma of established religion, what exactly is it one is supposed to believe to reach salvation? Are we supposed to decide for ourselves? just lead the best life we can according to own consciences? It takes us back to belief in god being an irrelevance since most of do that, even us atheists, I think very few set out to do what they themselves believe is wrong.
I have to say I find your comments are very vague. True enough, I have a very prosaic engineer’s mind, but I do notice that whenever I pose a few concrete questions about trees to someone like yourself I simply get assertions about a forest that may not exist. “Start with what we know” is a fairly sound principle too.
January 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Milo, I disagree. I don’t believe that faith is blind acceptance, but, rather, faith is simply an acceptance that we cannot know everything (we’re defining the word differently). You do not need to blindly accept that which you do not understand. By blindly accepting something you close your mind to further learning.
xoggoth, yes, there is no “one true religion”. Religion in and of itself is irrelevant. What is salvation? What is Hell, for that matter? These are man-made concepts used to “guide” others within the specific dogma of a religion. Religion is not a requirement to lead a good, moral life. Treating others with respect and equality, despite their differences, however, is.
Perhaps, I was rather abstract, but how do you define that which cannot be defined without being abstract and vague? I never said the forest may not exist. What I meant was that if you only look at the trees, you miss everything else in the Whole. A forest is not composed of just trees. It contains different terrains, ecosystems, flora and fauna, ecosystems within ecosystem, macromolecules, atoms, subatomic particles, energy, and on and on and on. Each is an individual entity, but is also part of the Whole.
To continue the metaphor (and to try to bring the abstract into something definable and concrete):
The forest is the Creator, the Whole. Everything else is a part of this Whole and, yet, each piece is a Whole in and of itself, a Creator. Each Whole follows certain Rules and Laws that are common to all. Even a tree follows the Laws of quantum mechanics. Now, take the forest and extrapolate it to the infinite.
The Creator is, in a limited, finite sense, the Universe (actually it’s more than that, but, again, how do you define the undefinable?).
I agree that we should “start with what we know”, but it shouldn’t end there. We have to keep pushing our comfort zones in order to grow. I know I’m pretty much just preaching to the choir here, but just because there are aspects of evolution that we do not fully understand, it is no reason to assign a supernatural cause. Instead of closing eyes, sticking fingers in ears, and going “nahnahnahanah, God, nahnahnahnah”, people need to open their minds and see the wonderful intricacies of nature.
January 13th, 2008 at 3:27 pm
Well, i’ve read the whole thing, and it follows the standard pattern so far.
Creationist posts his “Reasons evolution is wrong”
he is reminded that astronomy and statistics are not evolution and his “proof” is discarded using high-school level physics.
Creationist is asked to proof creationism.
And that’s where we are now. So Scott, go for it. Safe your face and pose at least some small proof that shows creationism is true.
of course, don’t forget that Evolution allready explains, and is supported by, 1)- The fossil record. 2)- the genetic record. 3)- the fields of geology and biology. 4)- physical observation.
Evolution is also: A)- Predictive. B)- fully explanatory. C)- a near-perfect match for all new evidence.
So, I challenge you to proof creationism. Build a strong enough case so that creation cannot rationally be denied. I would go as far as to offer you 100 US Dollars if you succeed in building a strong case for creationism.
January 13th, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Scott:
Empathy is the greatest virtue. From it, all virtues flow. Without it, all virtues are an act.
January 13th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
AggieCowboy: I somewhat agree with your take on the forest and the creator. If you accept the notion that “the creator” may have simply been a random sequence of events rather than a sentient god of some type, it still fits your “religion”. On the other hand, the creator could actually be a godlike entity. We don’t know.
What I’m trying to work out is whether your approach would make it easier to understand our place in the cosmos, or whether it is basically saying “i can has relidgin, too?” I don’t mean that derisively but it probably sounds that way — sorry if I offend!
I like the way you accept that not knowing is a kind of faith. I am not sure I like the way you mold that definition of faith into a quasi-religious standing. By framing it in a religious fashion, you add a lot of baggage.
January 13th, 2008 at 6:24 pm
AggieCowyboy
I dare say you haven’t actually said anything.
Metaphores only work when you have something firm to base them on. What you’re saying can be interpreted by a scientist as saying one thing, and to a fundie another. Are you agnostic?
Also, if you’re not going to use the standard definition for faith, then maybe choose a different word?
I’m not trying to be mean, nor are my words meant to have any kind of malice, but I’m just saying you’ve said nothing useful. =)
January 13th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
“Hey Jayman,
Adam and Eve were actually humans and so are you and I. If you ended up as a cat or pig and I was a hippo then you might have a point.”
Umm no
We are talking 4-odd billion years of evolutionary process. thats a looooong time for things to slowly change.
And yet you are trying to tell us that we are all decendant from one man and one woman, who only had two sons… so where did everyone else come from in your 6000 year creation story?
January 13th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
well, 6000 years would be more then enough time to repopulate the earth, asuming 1.2 children per person and everyone reproducing at age 30.
The real question is of course, If Scott’s correct, and mutation is only degradational (despite physical evidence to the contrary), where did all the seperate genomes come from? There are 7 major genes for eye color, for example. Noah and his wife could only have carried 4 at maximum, where did the other three come from?
And here are some questions that need answering before Christian Creationism can even begin to look like a valid theory:
And how did noah fit all of those animals for 314+ days worth of food and fresh water aboard the ark? How did Koalas, penguins, lamas, dodos, nile crocodiles, buffalo, condors etc etc etc all get to the ark? and how did they get back? How did Noah feed them? How did the Ark float, as a wooden ship cannot possibly be that big?
Why do we find fossils of less-’advanced’ species only in deeper soil layers? Did they dig holes before death and fossilisation? Why, if evolution is wrong, can it accuratly predict where a fossil will be, before we even start looking? Why, if evolution is wrong, can we observe it happing right now? (anti-biotics resistant bacteria for example)
Why doesn’t the bible describe dinosaurs in daily life? If the bible is true, why can’t we find any evidence of the millions of people who left egypt during the Exodus (ignoring the logistical impossibility of it)?
Why do we not find fossils of modern animals anywhere, when there are many fossils of ‘less advanced variants’ of the same animal, with the more basic version lowest in the soil? How is it possible that we have evidence of millions of years of geological deposition, when the earth is only 6000 years old. Why isn’t there a geological record of the great flood? If the universe is 6000 years old, why can we see further then 6000 lightyears?
(note, when you say that your god created the universe to appear old, you’re going against your own dogma and state that your deity of choise is a deciever)
I could go on for ages, but I think it’s very VERY amazing if you manage to explain each and every one of those points, using Christian Creationism.
January 13th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Off on a bit of a limb here - as an English observer may I pass comment on the quality of the posts? I may have nothing to add to the discussion (others have recorded my thoughts very well)but I feel obliged to congratulate all your contributors on their measured and intelligent arguments. This is not condescension on my part - this kind of discussion is virtually unknown in the UK, and anyone venturing near the subjects of Evolution or Creationism would be barred from the Pub pretty sharpish. Mind you, I don’t think I personally know of anyone who would even understand the word ‘Creationism’. Perhaps that’s a good thing.
Scott: Nil Carborundum Illegitimus (we were invaded by the Romans a long time ago). It’s fake Latin for ‘Don’t let the bastards grind you down’.
Speaking as an unreformed Atheist, I have a lot of time for Scott. He has remained calm under fire and has not resorted to insult or infamy. Unlike some of my own side.
Everyone else - would you like to come to the UK and teach us some manners?
January 14th, 2008 at 4:12 am
Well, the UK doesn’t have the problem of Christians attempting to pass of creationism as actual science and trying to teach it in schools as “an alternate theory”, so I guess we, in sane world, should be happy that our leaders aren’t religious nutcases.
January 14th, 2008 at 3:14 pm
mike:
If it weren’t for the horrible rain, the terrible food and the rude people, I’d move to England in a heartbeat. (Or France for that matter)
“Don’t pray in my school, and I won’t think in your church.”
January 14th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
“If it weren’t for the horrible rain, the terrible food and the rude people, I’d move to England in a heartbeat. (Or France for that matter)”
Im hoping you arent American, but I’ll correct you on the rude people and bad food bit - the old ideas about dull/bad british cuisine have long long passed, and I thought the people there were truly lovely, enlightened cultured people (and I can say this, having lived there for 4 years). Compare this with say American food which was easily the worst, most non-natural, ultra-processed of any country ive ever visited, and although the people were generally friendly, your poor service industry employees defined the word rude!
Frenchies rude? No, Parisians maybe, but hot damn, there are sooooo many hot women in france. that accent certainly helps though. :p
And an aside - it aint the horrible rain in England thats the problem, its the damn constant grey skies that get you down! Apart from that, England is a great country and I’d move back there in a flash if I had the opportunity.
Back to the expose on the fairy tale that is Creationism…. :)
January 14th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
This discussion brings to mind a very good Sam Harris talk - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok2oJgsGR6c
January 15th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I think your link is dead.
Http/1.1 Service Unavailable
January 15th, 2008 at 10:19 am
Actually, youtube seems to have trouble, not just the link. Ignore the above post.
Back to waiting for Scott´s evidence and his responce to the explanations above.
January 15th, 2008 at 8:49 pm
Shaze:
I’m surprised at you. Perhaps you’ll think better of your post in the morning. Have you ever been to England? And please remember, we were here before the USA was even thought of. I have shirts older than the USA. As if rain never falls on North America (no hurricanes here, mate)…. and McDonalds (supersize me please). And rude? Ha!
Thank you Jayman.
Is there anyone out there in cyberland who can cut through this nonsense and finally admit that Islam, not Christianity, is the target for our posts? Poor old Xtianity, admittedly mad as a box of frogs, is these days harmeless enough. The other lot are not. So stop banging on about the Jesus followers and have a serious pop against the Prophet. If you dare. It’s crazy to keep up a tirade against Xtian belief whe the real enemies of our society are nothing of the sort. What are we trying to prove?
My point is this - the followers of Jesus, misguided though they are, didn’t carry out the 9/11 thing. So leave them alone. They’re harmless. Try having a go at the other lot.
Just a thought.
Best wishes to all kindred souls out there!
January 15th, 2008 at 9:03 pm
Mike, on the topic of Islam vs Christian zealotry:
In the US, the Christians are quite a bit more powerful than I understand they are in western europe. Perhaps Italy would be a different story? Anyway, the Christians here are not blowing up very many buildings, but they have wedged their beliefs into the everyday lives of everyone, regardless of their own belief structure. It starts with simple things like definitions of vice and sin, and rises quickly to matters of international policy.
My life may run its course without encountering the slightest bit of trouble from the Islamic world, but I will not make it through an entire day without witnessing Christian wackoism.
Granted, that is not the whole issue. There are very real divides between the Islamic world and most western states. But they exist on different levels.
Andy
January 16th, 2008 at 2:19 am
Books like Margaret Atwood’s ‘The Handmaids Tale’ are reason enough not to turn our backs on Christianity as a threat… Sure, it may appear less harmless than Islam in some respects, but do we just need an upset in global politics for this to change? Its capable of the Inquisition, so who’s to say it isnt again?
F**k, the amount of American Republicans party members who actively believe in bringing on the ‘rapture’ is more than enough cause for concern!
so in summary:
FUCK YOU MOHAMMED!
FUCK YOU JESUS!
ALL YOUR FOLLOWERS CAN EAT SHIT AND DIE.
all equal now.
January 16th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Did we not go over this Thermodynamics talk some time ago in a very friendly manner? So back to the barricades and sorry if this has already been explained.
The basic flaw in that sentence is that entropy is not equal to atrophy. Nothing is wasting away and that is also the problem many have with the second Law of Thermodynamics, total misunderstanding of the whole law, some do so intentionally, some just recite what is told to them.
In reality the law states that when ignoring self-gravity in a totally isolated physical system the differences of temperature, pressure and density even out or in other words get to be the same in all parts of the isolated system.
Entropy is merely a yardstick depicting how far the process has advanced, it is comparable to yards when measuring distances or percentage of something. It does not have any destructive connotations when used with the Thermodynamics.
The key points to remember are that earth is not isolated, we happen to have that yellow spherical power furnace blasting earth making claims of earth following the second law of thermodynamics null and void.
Secondly, entropy does not mean waste or chaos. It is more akin to average than anything else.
It is not actually correct example but it does point out the principle.
We need a FAQ section for all these basic explanations or what?
January 16th, 2008 at 11:25 am
To add to Jag’s explanation above:
If we were to say that all systems must increase in entropy, like Scott seems to be doing, then it would be impossible to defrag your harddrive, to learn anything or to unshuffle a deck of cards.
The only reason we can do these things is because none of them are closed systems, but keep in mind that in all circumstances entropy does increase in the universe. Unshuffeling the cards requires energy, which is provided by food, which grow with energy from the sun, which increases entropy.
The earth to, is by no means a closed system. We radiate energy into space and recieve energy from the sun.
January 16th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
“We need a FAQ section for all these basic explanations or what?”
might be a good idea…
kinda like this one perhaps, set out for ‘talking with climate change deniers’ with all the phoney “arguments” that global warming skeptics put in to obfuscate the scientific/social/economic reasons to deal with this problem, or that global warming isnt happening/costs too much to fix/is happening but is not our fault etc etc etc.
http://gristmill.grist.org/skeptics
nicely set out methinks
January 16th, 2008 at 9:57 pm
There is a sort of FAQ for the common creationist arguments developed by Scientific American.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&page=1
Point 9. deals with the second law of thermodynamics
January 17th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
nice link
maybe it should be a main hyperlink entry/reference for this board in general? this creationism > evolution crap is becoming a bit of a broken record.
January 18th, 2008 at 8:52 am
This has been great reading! I don’t know much about the UK, what do the majority of people there believe?
(Scott, I too, am waiting for your response)
January 20th, 2008 at 6:08 pm
“what do the majority of people there believe?”
well thats just the difference, a lot of them simply DONT ‘believe’.
January 20th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
“what do the majority of people there believe?â€
Doesn’t matter. Reality is not a democracy.
but, for statictics:
23.2% non-religious
71.6% christian
2.7% muslim
the non-religious include 390,000 Jedi :p
http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=293
January 20th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
It should be noted though, that only 7% of UK residents visit church more then once per year.
January 20th, 2008 at 10:10 pm
ask someone their ‘religion’ and they’ll usually quote what branch of church their family comes from, not what they actually believe ~ hence those statistics.
it would be interesting to know what the actually no of agnostics were in that 71% - i’d say a great majority.
January 21st, 2008 at 7:22 am
yes, i’d say that 71%-7%=64, so lets conservatively put the number of true christians around 25%. The rest being agnostic
January 22nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
i am surprised that Sid has not written anything. Where is Sid? just curious. did i miss anything?
March 11th, 2008 at 8:15 pm
I think people who play the probability card should read John Allen Paulos’s books, especially Innumeracy and Irreligion.
September 3rd, 2008 at 4:05 pm
[...] creationism should be taught in schools - A laughable suggestion. “No dear that’s not the bones of a dinosaur it’s the [...]
September 3rd, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Re post 86, I agree. Sarah Palin is a creationist nutcase and the fact that she is even a candidate to be VP of the United States should be a national embarrassment.
Religion is ridiculous.
March 3rd, 2009 at 6:50 am
[...] Creationism–A Veil Of Ignorance [...]
March 31st, 2009 at 1:22 am
IN “Origin of the species”, page 183, Charles Darwin wrote regarding the general theory of evolution,”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would absolutely breakdown.” One place where his theory breaks down is in the formation of living cells.There are no such things as simple cells.Bacteria cells,like human cells,are complex beyond our imagination.A single cell is like a huge library,astoundingly complex,not even remotely simple.Each cell contains many different systems required to keep it alive and enable it to reproduce itself.For the evolutionist to be correct,all of these various incredibly complex systems would have had to have been formed simultaneously by chance. Psalms 14:1 and 53:1 each say, “The fool has said in his heart,there is no GOD….”The evolutionist begins with the false premise that there is no Creator.Therefore,to explain our origins,the evolutionist has to assume that we must have somehow evolved out of organic material over billions of years.So basically the evolutionist pre-determines the answer from the beginning.He is convinced that the earth has to be billions of years old,and that it is just a matter of finding evidence to support it.The majority of the evidence he finds,which suggests that the earth is much younger,must therefore be wrong and must be thrown out and ignored.However,an honest man who examines all the evidence must conclude that the earth is very young.Romans 1:20 says “…..the invisible things of him(GOD)from the creation of the world are clearly seen,being understood by the things that are made,even His eternal power and Godhead,so that they are without excuse…”.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:14 am
Brian, claims of a young earth are simply ludicrous in the face of the fossil record, geologic evidence, and much more.
Your claims of evidence against evolution are also utterly specious. Do some actual reading of modern science, such as the excellent summary text such as What Evolution Is, by Ernst Mayr. Your ignorance of science is truly astounding. Again, I have to point out that modern biological science stands upon the sound foundation of evolution.
The creationist young-earth viewpoint is now only held by very stupid and ignorant people. It is quite pathetic that they still cling to it when it is utterly contradicted by evidence and reason.
Religion is for the gullible and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them.
March 31st, 2009 at 11:22 am
I will provide information from reliable sources which contradict evolution.But first I would like to know;How do you refute Darwins own words; which I previously posted.”Origin of the species”page 183, Darwin wrote;”If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly be formed by numerous,successive,slight modifications,my theory would breakdown”.One place where his theory breaks down is in the formation of living cells.Before I go any further I would like you to explain this,because if you cant,there is no point going any further,your argument is dead in the water.Will you actually address this specic point or dismiss it,as you frequently seem to do and then begin your childish namecalling? Solid foundation of evolution?THAT is indeed laughable!
March 31st, 2009 at 12:12 pm
Those who believe in evolution must accept it on faith. Someone properly summed up the situation by rewording Hebrews 11.1 for evolutionists as follows, “Now the faith of the evolutionist is the substance of fossils hoped for and the evidence of links unseen”.
March 31st, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Brian,
Despite the persistent efforts of evolution deniers such as yourself to paint the picture as other than what it is, there is no scientific controversy about the fact of evolution. Evolution is observed on a daily basis in fast-breeding species such as Drosophila melanogaster, and per recent statements in the National Geographic and elsewhere, the evidence for evolution is simply overwhelming. Get used to it; reality is biting you hard.
It’s time for you and other evolution deniers to accept the reality of evolution, and for you to put your sky fairy creation stories aside. Those creation stories are no more valid than many other primitive creation myths, and science shines a light right through them.
I’ll quote again from a report from the National Academy of Sciences,
“The discovery and understanding of the processes of evolution represent one of the most powerful achievements in the history of science. Evolution successfully explains the diversity of life on Earth and has been confirmed repeatedly through observation and experiment in a broad spectrum of scientific disciplines. Evolutionary science provides the foundation for modern biology. It has opened the door to entirely new types of medical, agricultural, and environmental research, and has led to the development of technologies that can help prevent and combat disease. Regrettably, effective science education in our schools is being undermined by efforts to introduce non-scientific concepts about evolution into science classrooms.”
Religion is for the gullible, the ignorant, and the stupid, and those who would profit from them.
March 31st, 2009 at 5:38 pm
For every link you post, supposedly confirming that evolution is true, I could post ten that point out its flaws and how it cant possibly be true, but you disregard the facts and swallow the evolution folly whole;(you must have a terrible stomach ache). I think its ridiculous that you spew out this folly as fact, but hey, you can wallow around in your foolishness all you want.
March 31st, 2009 at 7:08 pm
Brian, I was pretty skeptical about evolution when it was first taught to me in school. It was too elegant, it summed up so many questions I had and answered them so neatly. I studied the subject intensely and realized how a simple property of nature and life can have such massive implications. The fact is no other explanation fits with the information we have.
March 31st, 2009 at 8:38 pm
Yeah, Brian, there are a lot of links out there to be posted, aren’t there. In fact, this one seems a popular one, well suited for your cause.. However, it remains a fact that the scientific controversy that you are trying to put forward is a fabrication by creationists, with no valid support in science. The quote that I presented previously speaks to that directly, as do recent issues of Scientific American.
It isn’t surprising that you and others like you will fight tooth and nail to preserve your creation myths. You have a lot vested in your beliefs, and your religion has a lot to lose, financially and otherwise, as it (inevitably) declines.
Your battle is however, pathetic and wrongheaded. The evidence speaks against you in spades, even in evolutionary clues that you walk around with in your body every day. Creationism’s day passed more than 150 years ago (it never should have been), and Christianity itself is also being left behind by progressive societies, as it should be. Evolution is an observed reality with overwhelming support in evidence, and it really is time for you to get used to it, and to put your archaic sky fairy myths from your childhood to bed.
So, had that appendix of yours removed yet? Ever wonder what it’s doing there?
Religion is a disease of the mind. Inoculate against it with reason.
March 31st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
But don’t you see Korgan? It’s a conspiracy, the “scientific” community will do anything to silence the truth. They’ll fabricate information and only publish research that contradicts the bible.
The sad thing is I’ve had multiple conversations with different people who believe exactly that.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:35 am
Korgan, my appendix is doing stuff for my body. I had a chance to remove it one time. The Doc said, do you want us to take out your appendix since we’re inside” I said, NO WAY! I told the Doc. it is there for a reason but no thanks Doc.
We don’t silence that truth for the truth is based on the Bible.
By the potters commands and the potters hands everything has been made by Him.
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
This world and space were created by God from 100% nothing to 100% something. How can you create 100% something from 100% nothing? I love your fairy tales that you speak of.
There is a designer of this world and when the creation was done said, it is good. I say, I do agree Korgan and Irish it is GOOD.
And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
April 2nd, 2009 at 4:58 am
For an objective look at both matters at hand, I’d encourage you all to read the book ‘Refuting Evolution’, by Jonathan Sarfati.
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 am
If someone else’s opinion that differs from your own ‘baffles’ you so much, it’s fairly likely that you havent got nearly as much of an understanding of other’s beliefs and opinions as you think you do.
I used to ‘believe’ in evolution. I’ve really done my share of studying the science behind it, and you couldnt sway me if you tried. This is an easy stance to take.
Now I’ve done my research, talked to all sorts of people about it, thought independently for myself, not just accepting what people from either side of the argument say. I was surprised at the things I found out during my research, and I encourage everyone to do yourselves a favour, and diligently research the OTHER side of the argument, whether you are creationist or evolutionist. Read books about it, check out some internet articles. Make sure you’re in the know. Also recognise that your research should never really stop.
To argue a case so passionately while you really don’t understand the issues of one or both sides is very foolish. This is an important topic.
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
I have never met a person who understands evolution and then refutes it. I have met many who claim understanding it and refuting it but they have never been able to explain evolution to me without errors.
Science requires no faith.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:03 pm
Evolutionists have absolutely “NO” evidence for macro evolution (micro evolution is fine)
Seems to me evolutionists have an “agenda”. They are trying to get rid of “morality” so that “every man can do what is right in their own eyes” No laws (like NOT bearing false witness), therefore no law giver.
Evolution/atheism is a “religion” in my opinion and it reeks of New Age mumbo jumbo (You will eventually “evolve” to be gods)See Gen. 3:5, that lie is as old as this earth (which isn’t all that old!)
AND before anyone starts picking on creationists, there are wacky people on both sides. Scientists on both sides just need to give “evidence” on what they find and they can “respectfully” disagree on earth’s origin.
In my opinion it takes WAY WAY WAY more faith to believe in evolution (it came from nothing) than it is to believe in creation (God created it!)
From http://www.creation.com
Foxes crying foul in the henhouse!
Atheists’ cunning ploys to silence debate about origins
Photo by Grant Zippel
Speakers at a CMI SuperCamp answer audience questions
by Gary Bates
Published: 5 February 2009, updated with comments below, 9 February 2009
Recent news articles have featured claims that famous evolutionary naturalist Sir David Attenborough, apparently receives hate mail from alleged creationists telling him to “burn in hell” for not crediting God in his presentations.1 One wonders why a man held in such high regard would think that this is worthy of a news announcement.
At CMI, we regularly receive such mail, and often more ‘colourful’ than that—but so what? However, even the fundamentalist Darwinian evolutionist Richard Dawkins thought this was worthy of a mention on his own site.2 But why?
Those of us closely involved in the origins debate realize that “crying foul” is an oft-used tactic by the biblioskeptics to try and marginalize, in particular, the creationists. Understandably, the immediate reaction the average person (both Christians and non-Christian) has to such statements is revulsion. Evolutionists like Attenborough and Dawkins know that most Christians (me included) would be embarrassed to be associated with such remarks. Their hope is that the average Christian who might be sitting on the fence when it comes to whether God may have used evolution or not, will distance themselves from talking about or having anything to do with creation or creationists. Similarly, their hope is that the non-Christian will regard creationists as hypocrites, because, after all, “Aren’t they supposed to be loving Christians?” For example, one blogger wrote on Dawkins’ site:
“As for sending hate mail to him, that tells you all you need to know about the people who espouse the ‘loving and peaceful’ religion they follow like sheep.”2
Unfortunately, this shows how all can be tarred with the same brush, i.e. guilt by association. We all know that there is the occasional extremist out there (in Christian and non-Christian circles alike) who will go too far. It’s ironic though that no one bats an eyelid when someone like Dawkins et al. lets fly at Christians, often feeling justified by the unswerving faith he has in his own worldview. In CMI-UK CEO Philip Bell’s review of Dawkins book The God Delusion, he suggests that such tactics reflect Dawkins’ insecurity in his own position. He cites examples of name-calling with invectives such as “psychotic delinquent’, “evil monster” to describe God. Elsewhere he lets fly at creationists, calling them “unsophisticated Christians” and “dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads”.
Creationists … not allowed to speak back!
Photo by Bogdan Bednarczyk
Gary Bates answers one to one questions after a meeting
Let me share just one example from personal experience—one of a type I know most creation speakers could probably attest to—that will show what’s going on here. (I will withhold the location and the name of the church to avoid embarrassment.)
Some years ago, an evangelical church that is very active on university campuses arranged an afternoon seminar. I was invited to give several lectures and conduct question and answer sessions. It was an exciting event as many hundreds of people, both young and old, turned out to hear the information. At the end of the first session I made myself available for questions (as all our speakers do). One young man rushed to the front of the queue that was already forming. Like a machine gun in full flight he started firing questions at me, one after another. Most of these were what we often call Creation Answers Book type questions, that is, the most-asked questions we receive on the creation/evolution subject. So I was able to provide answers to the volleys being served up. It soon became obvious, though, that this young man had a huge list of pre-prepared questions that were more important to him than the answers. I tried to be very patient but no one else was getting a turn. So, I respectfully pointed out the many people waiting and suggested he come and see me at the end of the next session when I would be happy to answer more of his questions. He did, but once again attempted to monopolize the time, and his attitude became increasingly agitated as I again provided answers to his questions. Eventually, he did not even bother to listen to the answers before immediately jumping to the next question.
He personally didn’t know of any evidence that could prove his position.
This type of thing regularly happens to our speakers and generally reveals the motives of the person asking the questions. They are not seeking answers, but are only there to try and “stump the creationist”—to try to show that we don’t have any answers to “true science”. On this second occasion I pointed out that I believed I had been gracious and patient with him, but that it became clear that he wasn’t really interested in the answers. In particular, he tried to refute my comments about historical science—that is, that past events are presumed and interpreted in the light of one’s worldview or belief system. He claimed that the ”facts” prove evolution. I realized that if he refused to listen due to his entrenched belief system then I needed to challenge him about the foundations of that system. I said that I would only be prepared to answer any more of his questions if he could answer one of mine. So I asked him to tell me of the one piece of “evidence” that unequivocally proves evolution or even ages of millions of years. He ignored me and tried to engage me once more, so I reminded him of my offer once again, then answered the questions of others who were waiting. He went and sat down.
At the end of the final session he appeared once again and interjected with his questions, so I asked him if he had an answer to my question. He then stated that he personally didn’t know of any evidence that could prove his position but he said that he knew of scientists who could. I then asked who these scientists were and what was the evidence these alleged scientists knew of. He was eventually forced to admit that he didn’t know that either.
Asking questions
It was certainly not my intention to embarrass him, but for the onlookers (and hopefully to him) it was a clear example of misplaced trust in the hierarchy of the established evolutionary community and their own belief system. I could only do this by asking him questions in return. I pointed out that not only did he need to have faith in his evolutionary worldview, but worse still, he was also placing his faith in people who had faith in their evolutionary worldview. And, I reminded him, “Where’s the evidence that is so convincing?”
The episode with this young man reminds me of a comment by CMI scientist Dr Russell Humphreys in a recent CMI newsletter article:
“There is a little-known irony in the controversy between creationists and evolutionists about the age of the world. The majority of scientists—the evolutionists—rely on a minority of the relevant data. Yet a minority of scientists—the creationists—use the majority of the relevant data.3 Adding to the irony is the public’s wrong impression that it is the other way around. Therefore, many ask: ‘If the evidence is so strongly for a young earth, why do most scientists believe otherwise?’ The answer is simple: Most scientists believe the earth is old because they believe most other scientists believe the earth is old!” …
………………………………
http://www.creation.com also has a lot of info on Darwin. this article was quite amusing “Holy war? Who really opposed Darwin? Popular belief has it back to front …
”
They have alot of info on Darwin and Dawkins. If there are some who are not into doing what the young man in the above article was doing, please read the articles with an “open mind”.
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:50 pm
Ally, wow, that’s a lot of nonsense to spew out in one post. Next time, just post the link instead of copying all that bullshit from the likes of Christian Quoter (talk about a conspiracy…) into RF. We’ve seen it all before anyway.
Anyway, “macroevolution” is an artificial construct by creationists, and does not accurately represent that evolution is an ongoing process, albeit with a range of step sizes depending on various factors. Evolution, macro or otherwise, is not simply not disputed within the scientific community. The only people still clinging to the creationist fallacies are those without an understanding of evolution, and/or with a vested interest in preserving their superstitions.
Religion is for the gullible, the ignorant, and the stupid, and for those who would profit from them .
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:23 pm
There is evolution (as Korgan said it, no macro or micro but just evolution) and then there is speciation which perhaps could be described in simplistic terms as micro-evolution but that is stretching it, so lets not.
Evolution does not have any agenda nor do evolutionists (at least a step up from darwinists) try to get rid of “morality”. That is the realm of religions, behaviour modification by using psychological or social threats.
Morality is evolutionary trait in humans which religions try to eradicate and replace with artificial construct more palatable to the dogma.
Religionists have absolutely “NO” evidence for divine morality.
It might seem hard to grasp but the idea of evolution is not to actively change the concept to fit your personal idea but the concept survives by being the most adaptable and suited to the external stimuli regardless of your personal ideas.
And once more with a feeling, evolution has nothing to say from whence life appeared, it merely explains how life changes. The difference between abiogenesis and evolution is always tripping people up and thus revealing the level of understanding in regards of evolution.
Faith has nothing to do with science, science works even if you disagree with it. Faith fails when you stop ignoring reality.