Perry.."Evolution is a theory"

[Armistead]

That is how Perry answered when asked about it being taught. At the same time he believes creation is a fact and should be taught in school.
If evolution is a theory, creation is also a theory. If creation is a matter of faith, do we include it in public schools?

Again, not to argue God exist, but we know species evolve, we know the earth is millions of years old, these are scientific facts. Not saying that God couldn't have started the process, that is a matter of faith.

Perry wants to pray for rain in drought areas, if the rain doesn't come, should we blame God or accept it as part of our changing nature. What if God brings rain to one area, but not the other as such is happening in Texas, are those people getting no rain less in God's eye?

Don't know, but listen to the comments coming from Perry and Bachman, seems they want to force an evangelical doctrine on people through government.

It seems the GOP is leaning towards putting up a radical evangelical, they may do well until the election, then they will lose. It appears the evangelicals hold the GOP hostage. If Perry or Bachman win the ticket, Obama will win again.

Ron Paul would beat Obama, but because he doesn't want to force ideals on others, he again won't have a chance.

[Morts]

Gravity is also just a theory

[antikristuseke]

So is electromagnetism.

[CaptainMattJ.]

If Evolution is "just a theory"

Then Creationism is like a schizophrenic person saying that Turkeys are conspiring against humanity to blow up the sun.

[mookiemookie]

That is how Perry answered when asked about it being taught. At the same time he believes creation is a fact and should be taught in school.
If evolution is a theory, creation is also a theory. If creation is a matter of faith, do we include it in public schools?

Creationism is indeed a matter of faith, and cannot be proved or disproved using the scientific method. Therefore it has no business being within 100 miles of a science classroom. Sunday school, yes. Science, no.

Perry is also wrong. Creationism is not taught in Texas schools, as it would be unconstitutional (http://supreme.justia.com/us/482/578/case.html)to do so. I'm sure many teachers in the buckle of the Bible belt teach it in their classrooms with a wink and a smile though.

[TLAM Strike]

as is the Theory of Thermodynamics

[Betonov]

Evolution IS a theory and creation IS a fact.
Only that evolution is a theory founded on facts, evidence and conforms with every law of physics and biology. It's the loose ends and missing links that prevent it from being a fact.
Creationism is a fact. A fake fact, it's based on unproven imposible asumptions devised by cavemen eons ago and then handed down from generation to generation until someone decided to write it down. You can't even prove it phylosophically, let alone scientifically. It's purely religius and has no place in schools or goverment.

[Growler]

...Turkeys are conspiring against humanity to blow up the sun.

They're not? Damn. Wrong bet again.

[Osmium Steele]

Don't know, but listen to the comments coming from Perry and Bachman, seems they want to force an evangelical doctrine on people through government.

Same straw man, different source. I expect better from Ron Paul supporters.

If Perry or Bachman win the ticket, Obama will win again.


Opinion, spoken as fact, does not make it so.

Barrack barely beat McCain when a majority of the american people wanted to believe in him. The bloom is so far off that rose that the rose has wilted and died. No one is falling for his rhetoric anymore. Witness his latest "White like me" bus tour. Literally dozens of people attended his stops. Polite applause. None of the adoring crowds of the campaign, and certainly no fainting. It was so embarassing that the MSM barely covered it.

I believe even a Libertarian could beat BHO in 2012 if the GOP didn't pick a nominee.

Ron Paul would beat Obama, but because he doesn't want to force ideals on others, he again won't have a chance.

Based on the Iowa Straw Poll, if you think Ron Paul could beat BHO, then Perry certainly can, and Bachman aint too far behind. There are too many blue states in play this cycle. BHO is not going to be re-elected barring some major shenanigans on his part.

This last bit keeps me awake at night.

[Sailor Steve]

They're not? Damn. Wrong bet again.
Actually they are. And you can trust me, because we're not schizophrenic.

[TLAM Strike]

They're not? Damn. Wrong bet again.

No but the forces of Global Chickenism are conspiring against us all... :shifty:

[Growler]

BHO is not going to be re-elected barring some major shenanigans on his part.

This last bit keeps me awake at night.

I heard this exact sentiment expressed in 2004; the only difference was the initals.

[Growler]

Actually they are. And you can trust me, because we're not schizophrenic.

No but the forces of Global Chickenism are conspiring against us all... :shifty:

Well? Which is it? I got money on this question!

When my nephews were riding out West to work the Colorado and Arizona Rennaissance Festivals, they swore during the trip through Kansas that it was actually the first enclave of the cow overlords, and that the cows had risen up and imprisoned the humans to be the cows' slaves, and that the cows' dumb demeanor was only a trap to lull the rare passers-by into a false sense of security to make the cows' eventual global domination that much easier to accomplish.

Last time I heard from them, they were in Topeka.

[Osmium Steele]

I heard this exact sentiment expressed in 2004; the only difference was the initals.


Anybody who called that election prior to election night was an idiot, or engaging in a bit of wishful thinking.

[TLAM Strike]

Well? Which is it? I got money on this question!

When my nephews were riding out West to work the Colorado and Arizona Rennaissance Festivals, they swore during the trip through Kansas that it was actually the first enclave of the cow overlords, and that the cows had risen up and imprisoned the humans to be the cows' slaves, and that the cows' dumb demeanor was only a trap to lull the rare passers-by into a false sense of security to make the cows' eventual global domination that much easier to accomplish.

Last time I heard from them, they were in Topeka.

Sorry to say but your nephews are already dead. Best way to avenge their deaths are to eat as much beef as possible. :yep:

[antikristuseke]

But I prefer pork to beef :(

[mookiemookie]

I heard this exact sentiment expressed in 2004; the only difference was the initals.

Indeed. Running on the platform of "vote for me because I'm not the other guy!" didn't work for Kerry, and the GOP contenders would do well to remember that.

[Growler]

Sorry to say but your nephews are already dead. Best way to avenge their deaths are to eat as much beef as possible. :yep:


They were good lads, they'll be missed.

Anyway, moving on.

Pass me the steak sauce and another beer.

[antikristuseke]

The following contains creationist logic, read at own risk

How can you say "The Bible writers were wrong" but "the scientific writers are right?"

Were both not written by humans?

If science is just a conspiracy by the Illuminati, then science can not be relied upon.

If I told an atheist, "prove to me the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth without consulting a scientific textbook" you wouldn't be able to do it.

I find it very unfair that atheists can cite scientific books as evidence but I can't cite the Bible as evidence.

sauce http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=83119

[Platapus]

If I told an atheist, "prove to me the sun is 93 million miles away from the Earth without consulting a scientific textbook" you wouldn't be able to do it.

The flaw in this logic is that it is not acknowledging that people have different levels of logic.

If you were to as me, an atheist, to prove that the sun is 93 million miles away from the earth, I could not do it without citing past scientific studies. Why? Because I am a layman in that area of knowledge.

But I can guarantee you that my boss, also an atheist, who has his Doctorate in Astronomy, could prove it if he had access to the proper instruments.

Just because a lay person with no knowledge of a topic can't prove something is hardly proof that such knowledge does not exist.

The difference between a scientist consulting a scientific text and a theist consulting a bible is that the scientific text has been tested, and will continue to be tested. As a scientific text it has to stand up to this testing or be considered invalid.

The problem with the various bibles is that it is untestable. That's why it is accepted as a matter of faith.

[Growler]

The problem with the various bibles is that it is untestable. That's why it is accepted as a matter of faith.

The fundamental, simplest form of the expression: Theories can be proven wrong; faith can't.

[Sailor Steve]

The following contains creationist logic, read at own risk
I did, and now I hate you. The reason? I spent a lot of time reading that entire thread. Some interesting stuff there. :sunny:

[Madox58]

Gravity is also just a theory

I don't believe in Gravity.
Things just Suck!
:nope:

[antikristuseke]

Gravity is also just a theory

Took me a while to dig this gem up, but there it is.

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is.
Sauce: http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=21411

[Skybird]

Evolution indeed is just a theory. Anything science concludes and posts in models, is a theory. Even socalled scientific evidence - is just theories, models, though with a very heavy empirical fundament. But theories emerge by trial-error, test and retest. That's what differs them from speculation and hypothesis. Speculation is just making any random claim, picked from out of the blue. It is not tested, and holds no information whatever on its validity and truth. At best it is just a thought expertiment, which can be useful, but must not be useful every time. Hypothesis is kind of a speculation that bases on former observation or earlier theories, you try to extent a theory by a bit of imgaination - you form a hypothesis expanding the secured ground of theory. If such hypothesis can be hardened in test trials, experiments, by empircal evidence, then it becomes a theory, or a supplementation to an existing theory, or it alters existing theories.

So Perry is right when saying evolution is a theory. It indeed is just a model that helps us to sort our observations so far into the best possible order that allows us to bring more observations and finding sinto a structural order where we have far fewer contradicting data and more mutual validation of single facts and finding, than we could acchiueve with any other model.

Creationism is no theory, and certainly it is no fact. It is basing on magical fairy tale belief, on hear-say, on superstitious rumours. Not only does it not qualify for the status of a theory (not more than Star Wars does, for example), it is not even a hypothesis. To label creationism's babbled claims a "fact", is rich and a declaration of bancruptcy of every reasonmable, inteligent, thinking mind. The flying Spagetthi Monster, or the world created six thousand years ago and by a separate entitity called creator - both are statements of the same nature. No hypthesis. No theory. No model (in scientific understanding).

Just dogma.

To see this Texan getting so much support, is frightening, and no compliment for the average intellectual climate. Quite some belief-monsters seem to enter the race this time. And that this is possible, is frightening indeed.

[Tribesman]

The problem with the various bibles is that it is untestable.
Not at all, the problem with cretinism and the literal interpretations of the bible is that they are testable and can be shown to be bollox.
That is the wonders of cretinism, in its attempt to stand up against the theory of evolution it has to attack dozens of other theories across many fields of science.
It is why the people who compiled the bible said that only an idiot would try and insist on it being correct and that it is disgraceful and ruinous for christians to hold their religion up to such ridicule through their own idiocy.
And since those are the comments of the people who compiled the book cretinists insist is accurate they cannot exactly argue against the very people they insist are correct.

[Madox58]

Well, Perry gets alot of support because,

A. He Sucks
or
B. He sins

That's all I get out of this.

[Diopos]

Yeap evolution is a scientific theory, thank God !

:D

Religion can be an excellent pain-killer. As all medicine, when used you must be aware of the possible side effects!

.

[AJ94CAP]

Isn't this the same one who said he didn't believe in global warming either? Maybe God will elect him president, 'cause I sure as hell won't.:D But on a serious note, I don't understand the misconception that Catholics can not believe in evolution. The fact is that most of them do.:know:

[Madox58]

My Theory about all those running for office is;

If thier lips move they are lying thier arses off!
It's a FACT they will say whatever will get them elected.
It's still not proven that they will deliver!!

[Randomizer]

No but the forces of Global Chickenism are conspiring against us all... :shifty:
Actually I would suggest that Chickenism is less of a threat than many believe. Chickenists are badly divided over the "Chicken or Egg First" dogma and whether Colonel Sanders is a god or the devil.

[Madox58]

Actually I would suggest that Chickenism is less of a threat than many believe. Chickenists are badly divided over the "Chicken or Egg First" dogma and whether Colonel Sanders is a god or the devil.
That does not explain the random 'Suicide Eggings' I've see locally.

[vienna]

http://labizarro.com/calendar/events/event_pics/Chicken-Boy.jpg

[RickC Sniper]

Yep evolution is a scientific theory, thank God !

:D



:rotfl2::rotfl2::rotfl2:

[Castout]

Gravity is also just a theory

I tell you we are grounded merely because the earth rotates on its axis :D like being in a perpetual high speed left cornering car just that we adapt.

True that while evolution is a theory, creation is also a theory.

[Randomizer]

I tell you we are grounded merely because the earth rotates on its axis :D

True that while evolution is a theory, creation is also a theory.
Creation cannot be a theory as it makes no testable predictions and it is itself incapable of being tested empirically. It is purely a matter of faith and faith denies proof.

[MH]

My Theory about all those running for office is;

If thier lips move they are lying thier arses off!
It's a FACT they will say whatever will get them elected.
It's still not proven that they will deliver!!


Lie to me LIE to me Please PLEASE........

[mookiemookie]

True that while evolution is a theory, creation is also a theory.

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. The theory of natural selection is the scientific and evidence based explanation for the fact of evolution.

[CaptainHaplo]

Catherine Frazier, a spokeswoman for the governor's office, also said creationism could be discussed in the classroom as students are taught about evolution.

"It is required that students evaluate and analyze the theory of evolution, and creationism very likely comes up in that process," she said. "Teachers are also permitted to discuss it with students in that context. Schools are also allowed to teach biblical history as an elective and creationism is part of that teaching, too."


http://culturecampaign.blogspot.com/2011/08/rick-perry-teach-creationism-evolution.html

Whats funny is that no one wants to address the last part of Gov. Perry's statement. He says that we figure kids are smart enough to figure out what to believe.

A liberal plant using her kid to try and trip up a politician of a different opinion, and no one has an issue, but if its a kid "preaching" its borderline child abuse... Yeah ok.

Society spends ever increasing sums of money in public schools, where "facts" such as evolution are taught, but anything that threatens the monopoly of the evolutionary dogma is "unconstitution" and must be quashed. I mean, its not like after the trillions of dollars we have spent on education, kids would know how to think "logically" and examine the "facts" and make intelligent decisions about what they CHOOSE to believe.

The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology. Of course, it never occured to anyone that teaching children that we don't know how long the earth has been here (since "science" can't agree on a number), that we don't have any clearly defined record prior to ~6000 years ago, and that there are many ideas or theories about the earth's origins - but that since no humans were around at the start of it all, perhaps they can figure out what they want to believe on their own.

Dogma is dogma, whether it be creationism or evolution. If parents and teachers did their jobs correctly, kids would be able to think things through and figure it out for themselves, instead of having one view shoved down their throat while excluding any others.

Creationism IS taught in Texas schools. Its part of an elective Biblical History course. How is it that this has not been stopped?

[Castout]

Creation cannot be a theory as it makes no testable predictions and it is itself incapable of being tested empirically.

YET.

Same applies to evolution actually, that's why it is a theory.


It is purely a matter of faith and faith denies proof.

Quite the contrary faith results in proof. It doesn't deny proof. Blind faith is stupidity and hypocrisy is foolishness but genuine faith with knowledge is simply common sense.

[Castout]

Evolution is not a theory. Evolution is a fact. The theory of natural selection is the scientific and evidence based explanation for the fact of evolution.

Natural selection is not evolution thus it cannot be used to prove evolution. evolution as of today is still a theory. The theory that one species changing into a whole different one over time is still a theory.

The alligator is still the alligator after all :). They may be smaller now but everything is smaller now because the level of oxygen has been depleting overall. The snake may lose their feet but they are still . . . . a snake.

There may be even the possibility that the two theory doesn't contradict each other.


Anyway don't get mad. Just my 2 cents after all. You're free to subscribe to yours.

[TLAM Strike]

Took me a while to dig this gem up, but there it is.

Gravity: Doesn't exist. If items of mass had any impact of others, then mountains should have people orbiting them. Or the space shuttle in space should have the astronauts orbiting it. Of course, that's just the tip of the gravity myth. Think about it. Scientists want us to believe that the sun has a gravitation pull strong enough to keep a planet like neptune or pluto in orbit, but then it's not strong enough to keep the moon in orbit? Why is that? What I believe is going on here is this: These objects in space have yet to receive mans touch, and thus have no sin to weigh them down. This isn't the case for earth, where we see the impact of transfered sin to material objects. The more sin, the heavier something is. Sauce: http://fstdt.net/QuoteComment.aspx?QID=21411

That post made we want to cry... :cry:

F = G (m1*m2/r2)

I still believe in you Sir Newton! :up:

[MH]

Just for fun....i'm not religious but its always interesting to read opposing opinions.
Certainly when coming from educated people.
Not just Bible says so therefore it must be true.



Was Evolution Really Possible?
Moshe Trop
Ph.D.
CREATION - Selected writing regarding creation versus the theory of evolution






The theory of evolution was propounded by Charles Darwin, who claimed about 100 years ago that all existing life on earth - animal and vegetable - had developed from lower creatures, in a continuous chain of adventitious processes. The first life forms - the living cell - had come forth out of non-living material. Despite the widespread acceptance of this doctrine in scientific and lay circles, it contains much that is imaginary and it will not stand critical examination in the light of modem science.


DARWIN'S THEORY
The Origin of Species - that was the title of Charles Darwin's book, first published some 100 years ago. In it, Darwin developed a theory based on the possession by each type of creature of its specific characteristics and attributes. So long as these attributes are attuned to the natural conditions prevailing within the particular time and environment, these creatures continue to exist, proliferating generations bearing these same successful characteristics and indeed improving them, by means of the process of "natural selection." This "natural selection" is the outcome of a continuous struggle for existence, in which the strongest survive. On the other hand, creatures with less well adapted facilities - the "weak" - are defeated and disappear. Thus, through this process, which he thought had continued through millions of years, there took place development toward better and higher forms of life, until in the end man "appeared" from forms less developed than himself.



THE MODERN THEORY
Darwin's theory, in its general lines, succeeded in obtaining wide acceptance in the scientific world and thereby also with the general public. However, Darwin's original formulation and that of his many emendators, both in his own and in later generations, is not that at present current with men of science. On the contrary, many of Darwin's ideas were later found to be naive and mistaken. Attempts at improvement, and new ideas of later researchers, led eventually to the new theory, which states as follows: There are continual changes in forms of life, both beneficial and regressive. These changes take place in the hereditary factor (the "gene") of the organism and are transferred to offspring. They are caused by "chemical errors" (mutations) occurring at random in the "hereditary factor" of gametes (the gene) which is itself of chemical constitution and therefore is subject to chemical reaction. Since the fault is random, it may happen - and it is admitted to do so in most cases - that it will be detrimental, damaging the organism or even making its further existence impossible. But - so it is claimed - some few faults may be beneficial, and these will give their bearers and their offspring improved characteristics.


That handful of fortunate creatures - to continue the argument - to whose lot has fallen a mistake with a "beneficial effect on increasing reproductive fitness" become preferred above their numerous neighbors of the same species, becoming the "strongest" who conquer the available "living space" and eliminate during the generations their obsolete fellows.

Random processes such as these - so it is contended - continue for tens of millions of years, so that gradually and slowly new, better life forms are developed, continually progressing and improving, whilst at the same time weaker forms, lacking the ability to stand up to the exigencies of life and the pressure of their neighbors, are wiped out and disappear.
'

SOME - BUT NOT ALL - OF THE PARTS OF THE THEORY ARE IN ACCORD WITH OBSERVATIONS
The explanations accompanying this doctrine, called "synthetic evolution", are compatible in some ways with present knowledge about the chemical structure of the "hereditary material." This "hereditary material" - the gene - is in fact a portion of a molecule in DNA, found in the nucleus of the cells of all life. Successful experiments and clear observations have been reported of chemical faults - "mutation" -- occurring in nature. It is even possible in the laboratory to excite artificial mutations, and to isolate those organisms in which mutation has occurred. It is also possible to observe what seem to be cases of natural selection, in the development of steadfastness to difficult conditions. Examples are bacteria which can withstand antibiotics, insects impervious to insecticides, and animals and plants which can live in circumstances of cold, heat, and dryness. (It might be added, though, that often the selection lasts only as long as the exigency which caused it. For instance, when the use of the insecticide is stopped, the number of immune insects may sink to a small fraction of the total. Again, even though selection may favor black moths in certain places, some white ones continue to exist. In other words, the selection is often observed not to eliminate completely the "less fit".) It seems likely that such observations have helped the theory of "synthetic evolution" to gain the ascendance which it certainly has over the older versions of the theory, now largely abandoned. Of course, the newer theory is still continually being revised and modified.



THE THEORY IS WIDELY ACCEPTED
At the present the "theory of evolution" or the "theory of the development of the species" is accepted as a matter of course by the majority of biologists, who maintain that it accounts for the origin of life as well as for the existence, distribution and typification of species. The relationship between the various families and the common factors in the morphology and systematics of the differing life types are commonly discussed in terms of the theory. In fact, the theory is solidly entrenched in the biological sciences. Scientific literature has brought the doctrine into all institutions of learning at every level, and modem means of communication have spread it to every corner of the globe. Both the intellectual classes and the ordinary public absorb the notion continually as it is pressed upon them - what competition there is to it being neither very vociferous nor very well known - through all this publicity. The theory is quoted blindly on every hand and is swallowed whole by those who study it in the belief that it has been verified according to accepted scientific principles.



EVOLUTION VERSUS CREATION
It would be fair to say that the essence of the theory of evolution, as it is usually presented, is randomness and chance. In opposition to this is the belief that the things around us are the result of intelligent design. Such design needs must have come from something outside the things themselves; it implies a Designer. In cosmogony, we commonly call such an origin by intelligent design from outside Creation; and the Designer is the Creator.


Arguments will be presented shortly to show that the only reasonable belief is that the world and the things in it have come about by Creation, not by chance. At this point, however, a question might be asked. Did the Creation take place little by little, extending, perhaps, over a very long span of time? If so, it might appear superficially like the alleged evolution by chance. Or did it happen in a very short time, say a few days? If Creation is within a Creator's power at all, it would seem that there would be nothing impossible to Him in a quick Creation.

It may be that this question of how long Creation took is one which can not be answered by studying the world around us, since its Creation was, in any event, over before we came upon the scene. Our only way of deciding may be from records which we believe to be true accounts of what happened.

Since this article has as its purpose to show that Creation is the only possible explanation of the world around us, but does not propose to investigate how long the Creation took, the question fast vs. slow will not be considered further.

Let us, then, go on to investigate some more aspects of the theory of evolution as it is ordinarily proposed, some of the effects of the theory, and whether the theory is, in fact, a reasonable one.



WRONG HAS BEEN DONE TO STUDENTS OF BIOLOGY
The original researcher in evolution and those who laid its foundations were at one in ignoring the question of the statistical probability (or improbability) of any such phenomenon. Even now, very few critical mathematical computations have been made on this subject. However, when such calculations have been made, they have shown that the chances of the occurrence of significant changes even in the period estimated by the "synthetic theory" at some 100 million years are almost nil. In the light of our current knowledge of biochemistry, facts can be found contradicting every hypothesis attempting to explain any mechanism whatsoever for such changes and the construction of new genes. The lack of the logical explanation for the source of life is not the only deficiency of the theory; many have already demonstrated mathematically that random self-development of an organism is impossible in any geological period whatsoever.



WHAT ARE THE FACTORS CAUSING NEW CHARACTERISTICS?
One need be no savant to discover the improbability of the hypothesis of random development of complicated systems such as, for instance, material exchange and the energy utilization of sugars, of the physiology of the muscle and nerve. Sugars, as is well known, are the main source of energy for the body, and an important material in the making of the various compounds in life. For the utilization of grape sugar (glucose) by the body, it has to undergo a chain of reactions carried out through enzymes - adapted protein materials which hasten and supervise the execution of the chemical reactions or organisms. No fewer than ten types enzyme, especially adapted for the purpose, are required for successful execution of the process termed "glycolysis". Nor is sufficient, for the complete utilization of the products of the process requires numerous further sets of enzymes, the one interweaving with each other. These are the sets which carry out the "combustion," i.e., the complete oxidation, extracting the last bit of utility from the material. Every enzyme type within the set has its own defined task and its own specialized structure. (All of the anaerobic glycolytic pathways, for instance, are interdependent, acting in sequence to supply a vital source of energy to tissues. Although occasional mutants of their respective genes are encountered in healthy subjects, these mutations are not maintained at polymorphic levels in large populations presumably because they have no relative advantage and, indeed may be disadvantageous.) This specialized structure, then, has to be very precisely constituted to be suitable for the task which it has to perform. The plan for this structure, including the control and fine adjustment systems, is carried in information provided in advance in a special gene or genes (nucleic acid) found in the chromosomes of the cell nucleus. These are carried forward hereditarily from generation to generation together with all of the information locked in them. It is evident, therefore, that for a new enzyme to come into being and to be acquired by the life form carrying it, it has to appear as an item of information in the gene, i.e., a new gene must appear/ if this is to happen, it must be through the chemical mutation of another gene, as has been mentioned. The mutation would alter the gene, which would acquire a new meaning, and would be transformed, if everything should go well, into a new gene bearing new information. For a set of ten new enzymes to come about in this manner, at least ten new genes would have to happen, through ten different, independent, mutations.



APPEARANCE OF NEW CELLS
All the muscle of the body - skeleton muscles, and the muscles of internal organs - operate through contraction. This is their special characteristic, not found in other bodily cell structures. The relatively great pulling power of the muscles is produced by their contraction when they receive nervous excitation. When the excitation passes, the muscle relaxes and returns to its former state. The exact process of contraction and relaxation is constituted through electrochemical and mechanical operations occurring simultaneously, and it continues to be the subject of research without having yet been elucidated very completely. It is known that the muscles contract as a reaction to instructions emanation from the nerve center, which sends out signals to nerves attached to the muscle fibres; these signals cause chemical changes in the muscle and electrochemical energy is transformed into mechanical action.


Let us imagine an individual muscle cell (fibril) first appearing in the world, within one of the multicelled creatures. Let us see with what new tools it must be equipped, in order for it to be of any utility whatsoever. It is necessary for it to include several thousand new molecules of proteins called actin and myosin, for these molecules to be in a parallel, coordinated order of a special kind resembling a comb, in order for them to react simultaneously when called upon. The cell must be situated between two specific supporting points, equipped with a motor nerve cell to trigger it, have a suitable conjunction between the nerve cell and muscle, and a control system for the operation of the muscle when excited by the nerve. For the appearance of a new, efficient muscle of this kind suitable for use by an animal, there are required at the very least several independent mutations.


NATURAL SELECTION
Unicellular creatures, or primitive multi-cellular ones, multiply relatively quickly; from several individuals it is possible to obtain within a short time an almost unlimited number of offspring determined only by the living space available. Once the living space has been taken up, the life forms reach saturation point, their numbers cease to grow and remain constant, or even decline. However, it would be wrong to suppose that at saturation point the cells entirely cease multiplication; what happens is that reproduction continues but the rate grows to equal or exceed the "birth rate" and hence the number of living cells ceases to increase. In this situation, all of creatures "born" within a given time-span only a few succeed in establishing a widespread family. Those which do so are the more successful, in Darwinian terms; their individual characteristics grant them victory in the struggle for existence, it is said; they overcome others, multiply, and pass on their superior characteristics to their heirs. But by this argument, for a new system of material utilization such as that of the sugars, or a new type of cell such as the muscles, to appear as a permanent part of some creature, it is necessary that this new creature give its possessor some superior attribute enabling it to succeed in the process of natural selection. A new feature of phenomenon can be beneficial only when there is a complete set containing the minimum number of enzymes required, or when there is a network of parts and mechanisms fully integrated with the cells and its surroundings.


Let us assume that at least ten mutations must take place at once, in one and the same cell, for such a progressive change to occur. This is of course a minimum requirement, very far-fetched, and it is highly doubtful if, in fact; meeting such conditions would be sufficient


THE NUMBER OF POSSIBILITIES IS LIMITED
We shall now examine the possibility of the arising of a new metabolic facility within all of the generations of a typical unicellular creature (such as bacteria) which could have existed on earth. An approximate calculation shows that during two billions of years there would have been a maximum of 1048 births (or cell divisions) of unicellular animals, whilst in order for it to be possible for a specific

Creature to acquire a characteristic involving ten mutations, 1080 births (or cell divisions) are called for. It can be seen at once how wide the gap is, arithmetically speaking. Even more remote is the possibility of a multicellular creature acquiring a new type of cell such as a muscle cell. During two billion years there could have been only 1044 births of multicellular animals, while the best possibility for the acquisition of a new type of cell would be one individual out of 10160 births.


WERE LIFE CONDITIONS IN THE ANCIENT WORLD DIFFERENT?
Many researchers find refuge in the idea that in very ancient periods the number of mutations was greater, owing to the special conditions then prevailing. The world, they suggest, was then being bombarded with a great quantity of cosmic rays or other radiation, causing a high rate of mutation, so that all new characteristics could have appeared at random. It is regrettable that this idea has proven a

pitfall for so many, for on the contrary, a high rate of mutation causes death and disappearance; most mutations cause destruction of vital genes, or the appearance of degenerative phenomena. It is well known that excess exposure to radiation has destructive effects, such as the destruction of cells and structures, or the birth of monstrosities lacking entire limbs. It is permissible to suppose that the maximum rate of mutation which would not lead to elimination of the species would be one per million (about the number of vital genes); even then, in the first case considered, the probability of the appearance of a beneficial metabolic characteristic would be -one in 1060 births, and the chance
for the appearance of a new muscle or nerve cell would be one in 10120, even then there would be no possibility of such an evolution in the time available and with the number of creatures which could have existed.

Not only this; there are many types of creature which have acquired entirely new characteristics (or so it would have to be maintained according to the theory of evolution) whilst living in situations which protect them from cosmic rays to a greater or less extent. Land creatures such as moles, earthworms, etc., cave dwellers such as bats, and sea inhabitants of the deep waters (which can not live near the surface) would fall into this class.


NO SUBSTITUTE FOR CREATION
All calculations made of the probability of the gradual beneficial development of characteristics and new genetic systems, one after the other, in millions of life forms show that during the limited time of existence of the earth there could have been no possibility of the appearance of life of this nature. The hypothesis of evolution was founded by men who relied heavily on the supposition "that anything could have taken place on earth during an unlimited period". That supposition will not hold any more today. The tree planted by the original proponents of evolution has yielded fruit which has been consumed on all sides, but the tree has no roots.


The truth is that today men disagree about even the approach to the determination of the origins of the organisms now living on earth. Moreover, examination of astronomical bodies during space flights and by telescopes have brought until now only one conclusion - that life is a phenomenon unique to the earth, at any rate in that portion of the cosmos to which man has or ever will have access. Up till now ingenuity has brought forth no really scientifically well-founded theory to explain the origins of life.

There is no reasonable substitute for the creation of the world and all its creatures through a supernatural force above our comprehension - G-d himself.


*****

[razark]

Same applies to evolution actually, that's why it is a theory.
Except that evolution has been observed both under laboratory conditions and in the wild.

evolution as of today is still a theory.
"Scientific theory" does not actually mean the same thing as "wild-ass guess".

Natural selection is not evolution thus it cannot be used to prove evolution. ... The theory that one species changing into a whole different one over time is still a theory.
Evolution and speciation are not exactly the same thing. Aside from that, the lines between individual "species" can be very fuzzy at times.

The snake may lose their feet but they are still . . . . a snake.
Which would be evolution, if the snake lost its feet due to a change in genetic information.


Furthermore, evolution and creation answer two different questions. Evolution speaks to the diversity of life as we currently find it. For the origins of life, you need to attack the field of abiogenesis.

[mookiemookie]

Except that evolution has been observed both under laboratory conditions and in the wild.


"Scientific theory" does not actually mean the same thing as "wild-ass guess".


Evolution and speciation are not exactly the same thing. Aside from that, the lines between individual "species" can be very fuzzy at times.


Which would be evolution, if the snake lost its feet due to a change in genetic information.


Furthermore, evolution and creation answer two different questions. Evolution speaks to the diversity of life as we currently find it. For the origins of life, you need to attack the field of abiogenesis.

Thank you for saying exactly what my reply was going to be.

"Theory" in scientific terms does not mean the same thing as "theory" in layman's terms. To say something is a scientific theory is as close to fact as you can get. It's a conclusion that scientists have reached based on observable evidence, that evidence being evolution. (and yes, evolution is a fact, it's observable, it's happened before our very eyes)

And I'm not mad at all. As a wise man once said, "that's just like, your opinion, man."


The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology.

I've seen some howlers in GT in my day, but this....this is right up there at the top of the list. Wow.

My reaction when I read that:

http://i.imgur.com/P05dz.gif

Of course, it never occured to anyone that teaching children that we don't know how long the earth has been here (since "science" can't agree on a number), that we don't have any clearly defined record prior to ~6000 years ago, and that there are many ideas or theories about the earth's origins - but that since no humans were around at the start of it all, perhaps they can figure out what they want to believe on their own. That's not an argument against science, it's an argument for it! It's precisely why science works. Science is a constantly evolving and changing process. Theories are proposed to fit the existing evidence. New evidence is found and the theories are revised or thrown out altogether. Scientists disagreeing on things is the process at work. New interpretations of existing data are found, new data itself is found, and all of that that brings us closer to the ultimate truth. Disagreement makes science stronger, not weaker.

[Randomizer]

YET.

Same applies to evolution actually, that's why it is a theory.




Quite the contrary faith results in proof. It doesn't deny proof. Blind faith is stupidity and hypocrisy is foolishness but genuine faith with knowledge is simply common sense.
Your dogmatism is showing. Faith is not proof and can never be. Faith denies proof since it must reject any and all evidence that runs counter to the accepted articles faith. Otherwise there is no faith.

It is axiomatic in science that one cannot prove a negative so no thinking atheist would attempt to prove the non-existence of any deity. Likewise there is no reason why the Theory of Evolution cannot co-exist with faith without trying to magically create some impossible empirical equivalence.

The Theory of Evolution has made literally dozens of predictions that have verified by peer reviewed scientific method. The Christian bible, source of all creationist mythology, along with intelligent design has of yet made exactly zero biological predictions that can be empirically proven.

Where were the three-toed sloths, capybaras, alpacas and wolverines on the Ark? Nowhere, because the book of Genesis contains reference to animals only found in what is now the Middle East. Had Noah brought forth a pair of moose unto the Ark your argument might require some effort at debunking but that is not the case.

If it makes you happy to spin theism into science go ahead and be happy but your arguments are hollow and not at all credible. Sticking to them makes you sound like a religious fanatic.

[Castout]

Your dogmatism is showing

Stop right there.

WRONG. BIG TIME.

[Sailor Steve]

Stop right there.

WRONG. BIG TIME.
Actually it seems obvious to everyone but you.

Evolution may or may not be proven true in the long run, but for now all the evidence points that way. Anyone can find flaws in any scientific theory, and every scientist worth his salt knows that today's best theory might be tomorrow's laughingstock. But scientists work with what they have and keep expanding what is known.

Creation may or may not be proven true in the long run, but for now the only evidence at all is some stories written thousands of years ago, and are no more or less valid than the Greek, Egyptian or Mayan stories that we now dismiss as myths. That is why Randomizer said Creation could not even be a theory. There is no science there at all. None whatsoever. Creationists hold on to it because the Bible says it's so, and for no other reason. There is no evidence to show that God even exists, and certainly no evidence that the Earth was created in six days. Only the stories. As I said, it may be true, but so may the Norse or Greek stories. That said, we have no way of knowing, because there is no evidence at all.

[Tribesman]

The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology.
Wow:doh:
perhaps a basic foundation in bible study would help you :rotfl2:

Creationism IS taught in Texas schools. Its part of an elective Biblical History course. How is it that this has not been stopped?
Errrrr..... bible study in bible study
errrrrrr....studying religion in religious studies
errrr......hebrew myths and legends in ancient mythology class.

All no problem, everything is hunky dory.
But....cretinism in science lessons as a scientific theory:88)
As Augustine of Hippo said only an idiot would ridicule their own religion in such a way:yeah:
"foundation of its theology":har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Skybird]

Empirical evidence speaks volumes when comparing creationist claims to evolution. VOLUMES.

Empiry also speaks volumes about the likelihood that it makes any sense when scientifically oriented mind tries to reasonably discuss with the belief-oriented mind. The latter, in the lack of own argument, will always claim the freedom to just fall back to saying "But I believe different", and leave it to that as if that were evidence, and from that point on dismiss all reason and empiry and logic, kick them out of his thinking and fill the so-created vacuum with magical ideas of his own belief.

It's in vein. Just avoid such people, and just prevent such people from getting power and influence in the world.

Over the past ten years, I have quoted this passage repeaterldy, at various opportunities. However, it is a gem worth to remind of once a year or so. :) While being written in a different historical setting of the author who later was assassined by the Nazis, it holds so much truth for so much wider a diversity of situations and aspects of the world. And certainly also for the dogmatism of certain religions.


"Stupidity is a more dangerous foe of the good than evil is. It is possible to protest against evil, to expose oneself, and at times it can be prevented by force. Evil always carries in itself the gern of a substitute for it, in that it leaves behind at least a feeling of uneasiness in men. Against stupidity we are defenseless. Neither protests nor force can accomplish anythin here; reasons are of no avail; facts that contradict one's own prejudices simply do not need to be believed -- in such cases the stupid person even becomes critical -- and if they are unavoidable, the can simply be shoved aside as insignificant, isolated cases.

In this the stupid person, in contrast to an evil one, is completely satisfied with himself. Indeed he even becomes dangerous in that he is easily inclined to assume the offensive. Thus more care must be shown in dealing with a stupid person than with an evil one. We shall never again seek to convince a stupid person with reasons; it is senseless and dangerous. In order to know how to deal with stupidity we must seek to understand its nature. This much is certain, that it is not essentially an intellectual defect but a human one. There are intellectually quite able men who are stupid, and intellectually very dull men who are anything but stupid. In certain specific situations we make this discovery to our astonishment. In this connection one has less the impression that stupidity is an inborn defect than that under certain circumstances men are made stupid, or perhaps let themselves be made stupid.

We observe, moreover, that men who live secluded and alone show this defect less often than men and groups of men who are inclined or fated to sociability. Thus stupidity seems to be less a psychological problem than a sociological one. It is a particular form of the effect of historical circumstances on man, a psychological phenomenon that accompanies specific external relationships. On closer view it is seen that every strong outward development of power, whether of a political or of a religious nature, smites a large portion of mankind with stupidity. Yes, this has precisely the appearance of a sociological-psychological law. The power of one man needs the stupidity of another. In this it does not turn out that specific -- and thus perhaps intellectual -- human concerns suddenly are spoiled or go awry, but that under the overpowering impression of the development of power, man is robbed of his inner independence, and theat he now -- more or less unconsciously -- renounces any attempt to find his own relation to the situation that has developed.

The fact that a stupid person is often stubborn should not deceive anyone into thinking that he is independent. In conversation with him it is felt that you are not dealing with the person himself, but with cliches, slogans, etc., that have gained dominance over him. He is under a spell, he is blinded, he is misused, mishandled in his own being. Thus having become a will-less instrument the stupid person becomes capable of all evil, and at the same time incapable of recognizing it as evil. Here lies the danger of the diabolical abuse. In this way men can be destroyed forever.

But it is here that it also becomes quite clear that iti is not instruction but only liberation that can overcome stupidity. In this connection we must first realizae that a genuine inner liberation is possible in most cases only after external liberation has preceded it. Until then we must renounce all attempts to convince the stupid. In this state of affairs lies the reason why under such circumstance it is useless to seek to know what 'the people' are really thinking, and why this question is so superfluous for the one who thinks and acts responsibly -- only however, under the given circumstances. The word of the Bible that the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom (Ps. 111:10) says that the inner liberation of man to responsible life before God is the only real conquest of stupidity.

Furthermore, these thoughts about stupidity have this element of comfort, that they by no means permit one to regard the majority of men as stupid under all circumstances. It will really depend on whether those in power can expect more from stupidity or from the inner independence and intelligence of men."

-- Dietrich Bonhoeffer, I Loved This People

[TLAM Strike]

errrr......hebrew myths and legends in ancient mythology class.

Ancient Mythology class? Riiiight: because there are no Hebrews anymore... :shifty:

[Tribesman]

Ancient Mythology class? Riiiight: because there are no Hebrews anymore...
There are still greeks, is it modern greek mythology or ancient greek mythology

[CaptainHaplo]

I've seen some howlers in GT in my day, but this....this is right up there at the top of the list. Wow.

My reaction when I read that:

http://i.imgur.com/P05dz.gif

That's not an argument against science, it's an argument for it! It's precisely why science works. Science is a constantly evolving and changing process. Theories are proposed to fit the existing evidence. New evidence is found and the theories are revised or thrown out altogether. Scientists disagreeing on things is the process at work. New interpretations of existing data are found, new data itself is found, and all of that that brings us closer to the ultimate truth. Disagreement makes science stronger, not weaker.

Mookie, let me clarify. What I should have put is that the insistence on teaching evolution in schools (along with the exclusion of any other viewpoint - specifically a creationism one) is designed to undercut faith. Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is. As for the second part, of your comment, you prove my point. If disagreement is how the process works, why is it that an alternative view on the subject is not allowed? Would not science be viewed as the stronger arguement if it were taught in contrast to other views? Why is it that we cannot expect the children who are (supposedly) being taught how to function as adults to be able to discern logically which they feel is accurate? Or has the public school sysem failed to the point where pure dogma (of any kind) is all it deals in, which turns children into sheep who will go along with anything because they were "told" something was so?

Oh wait... I think we know the answer to that...

And the way you did the pic was cool - I laughed!

[Tchocky]

You can buy tshirts that explain Haplo's post here - http://controversy.wearscience.com/

[Tribesman]

Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is.
Science is science scripture is scripture, Haplo has a problem with science and doesn't even know the scripture he "supports".
Given those basics what he says has absolutlely no bearing at all on the topic and never can have.... apart from as an example of why "scripture" people should be kept miles away from any science class.:yep:

[NeonSamurai]

Whats funny is that no one wants to address the last part of Gov. Perry's statement. He says that we figure kids are smart enough to figure out what to believe.

Most kids actually will blindly believe most of what their parents tell them (particularly under the age of 14). Kids tend to be the most fanatical age group you can think of. Add to this the heavy indoctrination that goes on in most major (and plenty of minor) religious organizations and you have a pretty brainwashed group of individuals who can ferverantly believe in the most absurd stories imaginable, and even die for them.

Honestly I think kids should be raised with out it, and then once they are old enough, choose if they wish to follow a belief system. I was raised this way, where we were neither encouraged nor discouraged to investigate religion, and could do so as we chose and when we chose.

Society spends ever increasing sums of money in public schools, where "facts" such as evolution are taught, but anything that threatens the monopoly of the evolutionary dogma is "unconstitution" and must be quashed. I mean, its not like after the trillions of dollars we have spent on education, kids would know how to think "logically" and examine the "facts" and make intelligent decisions about what they CHOOSE to believe.

Evolution is not a fact, it is the current scientific theory. It is however falsifiable, and well supported by the information we have. The basic concept of creation (as related in the bible) is easily demonstrated to be false (the world was not created 6000 years ago as is, there is a veritable mountain of counter evidence). Intelligent design is certainly possible, but it cannot be disproven and is not scientific.

The other major issue, is if the schools have to teach other ideas that are based in religion, why should it only be the Judeo/Christian/Islamic view? If they have to teach creationism, then they should teach all the other stories of how the world was created. Fair is fair right?

The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology.

Or maybe Christians should stop trying to take the bible so literally, realize that these are a collection of ancient stories (with many flaws and contradictions I might add). Focus on the message, on the ideas, and useful teachings, and not all the nonsense. You can be Christian, believe in Jesus, etc. and still be a scientist, and scientific in your thinking.

Of course, it never occured to anyone that teaching children that we don't know how long the earth has been here (since "science" can't agree on a number), that we don't have any clearly defined record prior to ~6000 years ago, and that there are many ideas or theories about the earth's origins - but that since no humans were around at the start of it all, perhaps they can figure out what they want to believe on their own.

Your joking right? We sure as heck have a clearly defined record going back beyond 6000 years, from numerous scientific disciplines, plus several ancient civilizations that go back much further then that. We may not know exactly how old the earth is (we have a pretty good estimate), but it is defiantly a lot older than 6000 years. Again there is a mountain of evidence behind that.

Dogma is dogma, whether it be creationism or evolution. If parents and teachers did their jobs correctly, kids would be able to think things through and figure it out for themselves, instead of having one view shoved down their throat while excluding any others.

Hmm isn't that exactly what most major religions do to kids? Shove one incontrovertible and absolute view down their throats? Anyhow I addressed that already. Evolution is not a matter of dogma, as dogma cannot be debated or argued against. Evolution can most certainly be argued against and has flaws in it which will eventually be addressed. Evolution is an evolving theory, and has already changed quite a bit from what Darwin proposed. As more counter evidence surfaces, the theory will continue to change, and may even be discarded for a better one. This by definition makes it not dogma. Creationism is dogmatic however, because adherents refuse to let it be challenged, even though it is again demonstrability false.

Creationism IS taught in Texas schools. Its part of an elective Biblical History course. How is it that this has not been stopped?

I have no issue with this stuff being taught in the appropriate setting. Religion does not belong in science class, the two cannot be compared and they are not equals. If you want to teach religious dogma in a religion course, go nuts.

[MH]

What about a compromise....
Bible is thought in Israel in secular schools as part heritage all together with all the other subjects.
Its though more on a philosophical mindset.
And no it has nothing to do with religious brain washing into certain views.

[Tribesman]

Bible is thought in Israel in secular schools as part heritage all together with all the other subjects.

Is it taught as the basis of a scientific theory though?
That is the question in hand.

[Blood_splat]

"You ever noticed how people who believe in Creationism look really unevolved? You ever noticed that? Eyes real close together, eyebrow ridges, big furry hands and feet. "I believe God created me in one day" Yeah, looks like He rushed it."
- Bill Hicks

[mookiemookie]

Mookie, let me clarify. What I should have put is that the insistence on teaching evolution in schools (along with the exclusion of any other viewpoint - specifically a creationism one) is designed to undercut faith. Teaching about the theory of evolution by natural selection is done because it is the explanation for the observable fact of evolution with the most overwhelming empirical evidence for it. It is the accepted scientific explanation for why evolution happens. It's not a conspiracy to stomp out religion. Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is. If there were an alternative scientific theory of why evolution happens that had the same sort of evidence for it as the theory of natural selection, then it would be taught as an alternative. Creationism is not science, it's faith. It cannot be subjected to the scientific method. There can be no observations, no data collection, no experiments run. It's based simply on faith and belief.

Observation: Things exist.
Hypothesis: God created the world in 7 days.
Prediction: ???
Experimentation: ???
Conclusion: Yup.

It just doesn't work as science. Why should it be treated as such?

[Armistead]

(since "science" can't agree on a number), that we don't have any clearly defined record prior to ~6000 years ago, and that there are many ideas or theories about the earth's origins - but that since no humans were around at the start of it all, perhaps they can figure out what they want to believe on their own.

Dogma is dogma, whether it be creationism or evolution. If parents and teachers did their jobs correctly, kids would be able to think things through and figure it out for themselves, instead of having one view shoved down their throat while excluding any others.

Creationism IS taught in Texas schools. Its part of an elective Biblical History course. How is it that this has not been stopped?

We clearly have defined records going past 6000 years from several tribes, 75,000 years plus.....Sort of throws that the earth is 6000 years old biblical theory out the window.

Try searching worlds oldest tribes. Some have a more detailed history than the jews. I also find that strange, every tribe has a creation story. The creation account in Gen. was probably written in around 1500 AD and seems almost copied from other creation stories that existed long before, with a differrent spin. Maybe God spoke to each tribe differently, but how are you going to teach that.

[Sailor Steve]

You can buy tshirts that explain Haplo's post here - http://controversy.wearscience.com/
Gotta love 'em. Why don't we teach the things on all those t-shirts as viable alternatives to evolution?

[Sailor Steve]

We clearly have defined records going past 6000 years from several tribes, 75,000 years plus.....Sort of throws that the earth is 6000 years old biblical theory out the window.
As does a completely different field of study. How long is a light year? How long did it take the light from Proxima Centauri to reach us? How long did it take the light from NGC 4203 to get here? The furthest star in our own galaxy is approximately 95,000 light years away, so either the galaxy is that old or God lied to us. Either one is untenable to any theology (well, except the Greeks and the Norse, but their stories are myths while our stories are the truth).

Science is science and faith is faith, and apparently never the twain shall meet.

[Diopos]

You don't get it.
The universe was created 6000 years ago. God just added fossils, already decaying radio isotopes, the universal X-ray background, etc, with the initial creation because ...
... he wanted to pull a joke? :o


.

[Armistead]

As does a completely different field of study. How long is a light year? How long did it take the light from Proxima Centauri to reach us? How long did it take the light from NGC 4203 to get here? The furthest star in our own galaxy is approximately 95,000 light years away, so either the galaxy is that old or God lied to us. Either one is untenable to any theology (well, except the Greeks and the Norse, but their stories are myths while our stories are the truth).

Science is science and faith is faith, and apparently never the twain shall meet.

What amazes me is those that believe in a 6000 year old earth will accept a written story over all scientific evidence. They deny all the proof that tribes of people populated the earth with much written detail up to 75,000 years ago. They deny the plate structure of the earth, fossil fuels.

In one debate in a religious forum, one even stated God created in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, but sped it up so it would look much older so we would have to use faith.

In fact the creation story of the bible shows God can't just wink...if you're God, why would it take you 6 days just to create lil old earth, then a day of rest.

Clear it's just a story of how they tried to explain creation lacking science.

Wonder if christians would accept creation being taught in mythology, instead of science.


Like many, I don't discount God may exist, my faith says it's possible, but I just don't know.

[Sailor Steve]

In one debate in a religious forum, one even stated God created in 6 days 6 thousand years ago, but sped it up so it would look much older so we would have to use faith.
So even they say that God lied? Interesting.

Like many, I don't discount God may exist, my faith says it's possible, but I just don't know.
I lost my faith a long time ago, but I also don't discount that God may exist. My brain says it's possible, and I don't know one way or the other.

[MH]

As does a completely different field of study. How long is a light year? How long did it take the light from Proxima Centauri to reach us? How long did it take the light from NGC 4203 to get here? The furthest star in our own galaxy is approximately 95,000 light years away, so either the galaxy is that old or God lied to us. Either one is untenable to any theology (well, except the Greeks and the Norse, but their stories are myths while our stories are the truth).

Science is science and faith is faith, and apparently never the twain shall meet.
Not that simple...there is first grade evolution and first grade creation.

How did G-d create the world? The Torah commentator Rashi tells us that G-d created everything in potential on Day One, and then different species developed from that primordial soup. (see Genesis 1:24, 2:4) It is worthwhile noting that as he was writing in the 11th century, Rashi was not making apologetics in the face of a scientific challenge!

Rabbi Shimshon Rafael Hirsch (19th century Germany) further explains that each "Day" represents a specific stage of creation - i.e. a mingling of raw materials and bursts of dramatic new development. As you go through the Torah's account, you see described a gradual process from simple to more complex organisms - first a mass of swirling gasses, then water, then the emergence of dry land, followed by plants, fish, birds, animals, and finally, human beings. This pattern may be similar to the evolutionary process proposed by science. It is truly fascinating to realize that the Torah's position never changed; science has come to match it! In fact, the recently proposed Punctuated Theory of Equilibria is a further step toward the reconciliation of Judaism and science. In other words, Arnold Penzias, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his research on the Big Bang, remarked: "What we see marking the flight of galaxies with our telescopes, Maimonides saw from his metaphysical view."


15 Billion or Six Days?
Today, we look back in time. We see 15 billion years. Looking forward from when the universe is very small ***8213; billions of times smaller ***8213; the Torah says six days. They both may be correct.
What's exciting about the last few years in cosmology is we now have quantified the data to know the relationship of the "view of time" from the beginning, relative to the "view of time" today. It's not science fiction any longer. Any one of a dozen physics text books all bring the same number. The general relationship between time near the beginning when stable matter formed from the light (the energy, the electromagnetic radiation) of the creation) and time today is a million million, that is a trillion fold extension. That's a 1 with 12 zeros after it. It is a unit-less ratio. So when a view from the beginning looking forward says "I'm sending you a pulse every second," would we see it every second? No. We'd see it every million million seconds. Because that's the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe. In astronomy, the term is “red shift.” Red shift in observed astronomical data is standard.
The Torah doesn't say every second, does it? It says Six Days. How would we see those six days? If the Torah says we're sending information for six days, would we receive that information as six days? No. We would receive that information as six million million days. Because the Torah's perspective is from the beginning looking forward.
Six million million days is a very interesting number. What would that be in years? Divide by 365 and it comes out to be 16 billion years. Essentially the estimate of the age of the universe. Not a bad guess for 3300 years ago.
The way these two figures match up is extraordinary. I'm not speaking as a theologian; I'm making a scientific claim. I didn't pull these numbers out of hat. That's why I led up to the explanation very slowly, so you can follow it step-by-step.
Now we can go one step further. Let's look at the development of time, day-by-day, based on the expansion factor. Every time the universe doubles, the perception of time is cut in half. Now when the universe was small, it was doubling very rapidly. But as the universe gets bigger, the doubling time gets longer. This rate of expansion is quoted in "The Principles of Physical Cosmology," a textbook that is used literally around the world.
(In case you want to know, this exponential rate of expansion has a specific number averaged at 10 to the 12th power. That is in fact the temperature of quark confinement, when matter freezes out of the energy: 10.9 times 10 to the 12th power Kelvin degrees divided by (or the ratio to) the temperature of the universe today, 2.73 degrees. That's the initial ratio which changes exponentially as the universe expands.)
The calculations come out to be as follows:
• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the "beginning of time perspective." But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
• The second day, from the Bible's perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
• The third 24 hour day also included half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
• The fourth 24 hour day ***8213; one billion years.
• The fifth 24 hour day ***8213; one-half billion years.
• The sixth 24 hour day ***8213; one-quarter billion years.
When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?
But there's more. The Bible goes out on a limb and tells you what happened on each of those days. Now you can take cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, and look at the history of the world, and see whether or not they match up day-by-day. And I'll give you a hint. They match up close enough to send chills up your spine.
Actually when take aside this superficial bashing its quite fascinating.
You can look at it as adapting religion to since or the other way around still its interesting.

[Armistead]

So even they say that God lied? Interesting.


I lost my faith a long time ago, but I also don't discount that God may exist. My brain says it's possible, and I don't know one way or the other.

I understand..

It's usually a long process to get there....

[antikristuseke]

Gotta love 'em. Why don't we teach the things on all those t-shirts as viable alternatives to evolution?

That would be ****ing hilarious, and horribly counterproductive towards advancing education, unless you it was in a cynicism class.

[Tribesman]

That would be ****ing hilarious, and horribly counterproductive towards advancing education, unless you it was in a cynicism class.
It can be turned around and made very productive towards advancing education, call it business studies and run the class on the premise that if you can get other people to really swallow this crap you should be able to sell them anything.

[AngusJS]

The teaching of evolution in schools is little more than an attempt to destroy Christianity by teaching children that it could not be factual, and thus destroying the foundation of its theology. Of course, it never occured to anyone that teaching children that we don't know how long the earth has been here (since "science" can't agree on a number), that we don't have any clearly defined record prior to ~6000 years ago, and that there are many ideas or theories about the earth's origins - but that since no humans were around at the start of it all, perhaps they can figure out what they want to believe on their own.And it's for this reason that you can never convict anyone who is suspected of committing a crime, as we simply can't deduce past events from present evidence. :doh:

Didn't you already ask about the age of the Earth a while back? And weren't you conclusively shown by a number of people that it's billions of years older than what the fundies want to be true?

Anyway, this video shows exactly how we know that your 6000 year figure is completely, laughably, wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/user/potholer54#p/c/DB23537556D7AADB/22/riLm-AMa7_I

[antikristuseke]

like pedophilia, case in point.

[Skybird]

By Haplo's logic, the world was created 44 years ago, on February 14th, 1967. Because I have not been around before that date to give testimony that the world already existed before my birth.

Wowh. I just realised the implication. The universe was born with and through me. Now am I a giant divine diety or not, eh? On your knees all you worthless lice or I cast my justice upon you and sentence you to eternal suffering on my iggy list!

[Skybird]

Hypothesis: God created the world in 7 days.

Days...? Without a sun existing that revolved around earth (also still not existing)...? Time - in a universe non-created and thus time not being there?

:D

A miracle! God finally proven!

[Skybird]

http://rcd.typepad.com/personal/id_cartoon.jpg

http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/karikatur568.gif

[MH]

http://www.payer.de/religionskritik/karikatur568.gif

ok now...that's funny.:rotfl2:

[NeonSamurai]

Typical, its everyone else with the crazy beliefs not yourself :DL

[CaptainMattJ.]

Lets look at what faith can mean.

Faith says i can tell you to jump off a cliff. i cant assure you anything, i must leave it up to you to believe that you are not going to die.

Creationism is Faith. It is a part of faith, and by definition, it is faith. If Our school children were taught that you can jump off a cliff and not plummet to your death, then we'd have alot fewer children.

However, if children were taught not only that you can jump off a cliff and not kill yourself, but also taught that based on observations, trial and error, and testing, that you cannot jump off a cliff unaided and live, then we'd have a percentage of children not jumping off cliffs, and a percentage of children jumping off cliffs. We would still have kids jumping off cliffs, and that would be asinine.


Children dont know what to believe. If we teach them that things do not evolve, then Medicine will continue using large amounts of antibiotics to cure infections, and when the bacteria change into a super strain because they have evolved to cope with the antibiotics, then medicine wont be able to explain how or why this new species of bacteria has appeared. Along with complete scale backs of development into biology and other aspects of earths history.

We cannot teach creationism. It is just about the most retarded thing we can do. If you want YOUR CHILD to learn creationism, then TAKE HIM TO CHURCH. SCHOOL IS A LEARNING INSTITUTE OF FACTS. CREATIONISM IS A FAITH THAT IS BASED ON NO FACTS. :stare:

These retards that end up in politics are churned out by the retards who teach them. Church teachings have been passed on so much that people dont seem to stray from their faith. Hatred of Homosexuals, creationism, and attacking science has been hard enough. but with these retards gaining power and suggesting their retarded ideas are sinking the ship....again. so much for 21st century ideals.

[Stealhead]

Way to go insulting all the people in this world that actually are mentally retarded and grouping them with people who are not and have ideas that you disagree with.People who have normal mental capacity but that make poor decisions are idiots,morons,dip ****s......

I agree with you feelings about creationism but your description of faith is not very good.

Faith is trust, hope and belief in the goodness, trustworthiness or reliability of a person, concept (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concept) or entity.Therefore one can have faith in something and have no religious beliefs at all.A person can have faith in his country.Most Marines have faith in the Marine Corps and again that has nothing to do with religion.My wife can have faith that I am an honest person.A loyal member of the Communist party in the USSR would have had faith in the system.

Also it depends on the view of the given version of a religion there are many Christians,Jews,what ever else you can think of that do not follow the hard core ideology.

I would want god dam children to be some how incorporated into dams seeing as they are dam children that would be the best use for them.

[Lord_magerius]

Dara explains it all :O:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uDYba0m6ztE

[Sailor Steve]

That would be ****ing hilarious...

People who have normal mental capacity but that make poor decisions are idiots,morons,dip ****s......
It seems like we have to explain the forum rules at least once per day.
Please use language that you would use around your mother. No vulgarities, obscenities, hate speech, or foul language. Do not use *******ing w*rds with aster*cks, that's the same thing as vulgar languge. Express yourself with respect to others.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language

[MH]

Lets look at what faith can mean.

Faith says i can tell you to jump off a cliff. i cant assure you anything, i must leave it up to you to believe that you are not going to die.

Creationism is Faith. It is a part of faith, and by definition, it is faith. If Our school children were taught that you can jump off a cliff and not plummet to your death, then we'd have alot fewer children.

.

Just forgot to mention that in western religions its forbidden to jump of the cliff.
If you did not mean it literally then never mind.

[antikristuseke]

Mookie, let me clarify. What I should have put is that the insistence on teaching evolution in schools (along with the exclusion of any other viewpoint - specifically a creationism one) is designed to undercut faith. Teacing evolution itself isn't necessarily about getting rid of religious views, but the unwillingness to even broach other ideas - is. As for the second part, of your comment, you prove my point. If disagreement is how the process works, why is it that an alternative view on the subject is not allowed? Would not science be viewed as the stronger arguement if it were taught in contrast to other views? Why is it that we cannot expect the children who are (supposedly) being taught how to function as adults to be able to discern logically which they feel is accurate? Or has the public school sysem failed to the point where pure dogma (of any kind) is all it deals in, which turns children into sheep who will go along with anything because they were "told" something was so?

Oh wait... I think we know the answer to that...


Here is the thing though, creationism has been given a fair looking over and found utterly lacking more than a century ago. Since then the same crap has been rehashed and it has been looked over again under different guises and yet again found to be wanting. Yet you people still persist, is it not insanity to expect different results when running an experiment with the exact same input and conditions?

Oh, also, what is this dogma of evolution you mention?

[NeonSamurai]

It seems like we have to explain the forum rules at least once per day.

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/faq.php?faq=vb_faq#faq_new_faq_item_language


Frankly I am starting to get tired of having to issue warnings on this, and am going to start handing out full infractions.