From news.com.au

A CHRISTIAN school in Sydney has moved to incorporate the controversial Intelligent Design theory into its science classes as an alternative to the theory of evolution.
High-school students at Pacific Hills Christian School have begun to study ID theory, which claims to have scientific evidence that life on Earth was at least partly the work of a designer.

The school's decision appears to be one of first forays of the controversial US-developed theory into the Australian school system where it will be met with strong opposition from the nation's science teachers.

The issue has already proved deeply divisive in the US, where the promotion of religion in schools is constitutionally banned. Australian science teachers have decided to oppose teaching ID, but will allow its discussion as a "belief system" in science class.

"We would have no problem with ID being taught in religious or science classes," said the school's principal, Ted Boyce, adding that teachers were working to include it in the curriculum for next year.

"Evolution is taught in the school system as if it's a universally-accepted theory and there's no other way to view the origin of man and creation," Dr Boyce said. "I have trouble with this. We would teach evolution as a theory and ID as an alternative theory."

Advertisement:
Sydney's Catholic Archbishop, Cardinal George Pell, told The Weekend Australian he was "agnostic" about whether ID, which uses DNA, proteins and mathematical formula to argue its case, should be taught in schools.

But he said he would be happy to see ID discussed in classes where evolution was sometimes taught in an "anti-God way".

"There's no doubt evolution explains a lot of things," he said. "But it's there to be replaced or improved -- there are many things it doesn't explain."

ID is being incorporated into Catholic school texts on religious studies, said Monsignor Peter Elliott, Episcopal Vicar of religious studies in the Melbourne Archdiocese.

"I don't think you hermetically seal off science from other questions," he said.


But prominent scientists have attacked ID as unscientific and "creationism in disguise".

"You can't teach it in science class," said prominent physicist Paul Davies, who has written extensively on the nature of God and science. "God has never been a part of science."

Professor Davies argued that ID theory was not scientific because it could not be subjected to standard scientific tests.

"It isn't a scientific theory, it's a religion," he said. "There are all sorts of beliefs out there: flat-earthers, fairies and philosophy class might be appropriate."

Pushing ID into the broader school system is sure to meet strong resistance.

Gary Thomas, the president of the Australian Science Teachers' Association, said the association had agreed to resist pressure to have ID taught in science classes.

"The study of science is about what is measurable, testable, and evidence-based," he said.

"The theory of evolution is the best scientific explanation forexplaining the changes in life on Earth."

But science teachers also agreed that they could include ID as a topic in the classroom.

"While Intelligent Design has no status as a scientific theory, teachers of science may wish to contrast it to other belief systems with scientific theories like evolution, as a means of assisting students to understand better the nature of science," ANSTA has concluded

Seems that the conservative christian stupidity from the US has spilled over into our country. The originators of ID theory openly proclaim that ID is the top of a 'wedge' to get christian creationism taught in schools(source here).

I could spend pages writing my own thoughts on the idiocy of ID, religious creationism in general, but it's been done before by many people much smarter and more eloquent than I, so here's some good links to articles on the issue:

The case agains't intellignet design (PDF format)
<-Long, but highly interesting, one of the best written critiques of ID out there.
One side can be wrong

If you do a goodle search for intelligent design, you'll find heaps more (for and agains't)

I really hope that this information makes it into the mainstream sometime soon, before more schools decide to start teaching ID.

unbeleivable

fairytale theories being taught as fact!

unbeleivable

fairytale theories being taught as fact!

I bet all those who believe in ID are saying the same about people teaching evolution.

A CHRISTIAN school in Sydney has moved to incorporate the controversial Intelligent Design theory

I stopped reading at that point. Nothing useful follows.

Intelligent Design is just another name for creationisim. Who are they trying to fool?

It's just like calling a janitor/cleaner a Sanitory quality control officer.

IT'S THE SAME THING. Just a more fancy pleasing title.

noobs. jeeze.

I bet all those who believe in ID are saying the same about people teaching evolution.

Yeah, but deluded people generally try to pass off facts that run counter to thier own ideologies as make believe. Nothing new there.

last edited by A_W at 13:15:17 03/Sep/05

anyone notice the irony in korbs preaching

More like Dumb Design LOL

I am teh funny master.

anyone notice the irony in korbs preaching

if by 'preaching' you mean "quoting an article then stating my own opinion, backed up with references" then yes, the irony is both overwhelming and hilarious.

Good job, debater!

last edited by korbs at 13:27:00 03/Sep/05

Evolution is merely a theory. People believe in evolution as much as other people believe in creationism.

Science is the observation of events and the recreation of those events through experimentation. There was only one creation event and we weren't there to observe it. And as creation includes all matter, it's not something we can recreate in experiments. Therefore no matter how much supporting evidence is found for either theory (evolutionism or creationism) they will, by their nature, be belief systems not scientific fact.

So I support the teaching of all view points.

Evolution is merely a theory. People believe in evolution as much as other people believe in creationism.

From 1st article link:

It is important to realize at the outset that evolution is not "just a theory." It is, again, a theory and a fact. Although non-scientists often equate "theory" with "hunch" or "wild guess," the Oxford English Dictionary defines a scientific theory as "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."

In science, a theory is a convincing explanation for a diversity of data from nature. Thus scientists speak of "atomic theory" and "gravitational theory" as explanations for the properties of matter and the mutual attraction of physical bodies. It makes as little sense to doubt the factuality of evolution s to doubt the factuality of gravity.

Next,

So I support the teaching of all view points.

From second linked article:

In all cases there is a hidden (actually they scarcely even bother to hide it) "default" assumption that if Theory A has some difficulty in explaining Phenomenon X, we must automatically prefer Theory B without even asking whether Theory B (creationism in this case) is any better at explaining it. Note how unbalanced this is, and how it gives the lie to the apparent reasonableness of "let's teach both sides". One side is required to produce evidence, every step of the way. The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically, the moment the first side encounters a difficulty - the sort of difficulty that all sciences encounter every day, and go to work to solve, with relish.

last edited by korbs at 13:49:22 03/Sep/05

http://www.venganza.org/

also, ID does not have a place in science class when it is posed as an alternate scientific theory to evolution. It has no basis in science.

The other side is never required to produce one iota of evidence, but is deemed to have won automatically...

From my view, that could be describing evolution.

Scientists claiming that evolution is proved are exactly the same as religious people claiming creationism is proved. I'm saying that neither is proved. Each is a statement of belief.

Do some research on the theory of evolution and just how much "proof" there is supporting it. The proof put forward is that of micro evolution. They have not found one verifiable example of macro evolution.

fire up korbs

eu4ia: please please please read that pdf document i linked. The evidence for macro evolution is overwhelming.

Either way no one can deny the fact that this forum was anything but intelligently designed.

*weaves trog's left jab*

eu4ia, you are rediculously neutral on the issue. No fence sitting here, your on one side or the other.

Creationism is easily rubbished. It's a story and nothing more. You can't seriously think the billions of creatures (including humans) on the earth just magically appeared one day. lol. The earth was blank and then *poof* , animals and insects everywhere. LOL. Creationisim = crackpot madness.

The religious need to accept the fact their beliefs are just that, beliefs, and get over themselves already. And stop trying to push thier crap on everyone else.

Evolution is Life itself. It's everything around you. Infact you as a person are evolving right now. It's called growing and changing. Children growing into adults is a form of very basic evolution. And even once an adult, you continue to evolve on a very basic level. Growth = change, change = evolution.

And at the far other end of the scale we have mutation resulting into entirely new creatures and species. This is also evolution. Change = evolution.

This argument is so easy to wrap up. :)

For extra hilarity: Let me repeat, do you seriously think everything on this planet just magically appeared one day? Earth was blank, then *poof* , animals and insects and plant life everywhere. hehehe.

LIES!

That article has it wrong, so does most of the other stuff.

"Evolution is taught in the school system as if it's a universally-accepted theory and there's no other way to view the origin of man and creation," Dr Boyce said. "I have trouble with this. We would teach evolution as a theory and ID as an alternative theory."

Evolution is FACT, like Gravity is FACT, like 1+1=2.

The theory being tought in schools is the MECHANISM for evolution, it is the MECHANISM that is the debate. As soon as someone babbles about evolution being wrong they have missed the point.

Inteligant Design is a theory on the Mechanism of evolution. It is up against NATURAL SELECTION as a theory. Another theory was Catastraphism (spl?) The theory that evolution occures due to catastraphies.

Charles Darwin did NOT come up with the idea of evolution, he came up with the theory of Natural Selection to explain the phenomenon of evolution.

So after saying all that, I belive that schools should teach BOTH (and other strong cases) of theory's to explain evolution, to give the student the idea that a theory is just that, a theory and not to be accepted as total 100% fact.

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 14:51:42 03/Sep/05

Inteligant Design is a theory on the Mechanism of evolution. It is up against NATURAL SELECTION as a theory

sorry toll, ID argues that all of the species on earth were created ex nihilio in their present form. They stoutly refute all macro evolution theory.

That is unless there is some new sub-sect of ID-ers who argue this. If thats the case, could you hook me up with some reading material as it sounds quite interesting.

last edited by korbs at 15:04:26 03/Sep/05

EVOLUTION is a fact there's no disputing it. It occurs. Look at all the different breeds of dog we've produced. However, the part that's open to debate is whether or not evolution alone resulted in the diversity and complexity of life on Earth.

Hundreds of millions of years ago, we had single celled organisms which had RNA and reproduced asexually(meosis). Evolution can't occur in an asexual environment, hence why the movie "Evolution" was so f***ing stupid. However, RNA is far less stable than DNA, and only has a single helix. So we're left with two options as to how DNA, sexual reproduction and speciation came about:

1. One day, POOF, one cell loses an oxygen molecule from it's RNA and get's DNA: the double helix of information that's key to sexual reproduction. RNA being more volatile is more susceptible to mutation. By some magical fluke the RNA could have changed and lost it's oxygen molecule and still produced a viable creature. Who knows.

2. Or two RNA prokaryotic cells combined to produce a eukaryiotic cell with DNA.

Maybe the uber being created RNA life forms, and then evolution made them change into DNA life forms.

For extra hilarity: Let me repeat, do you seriously think everything on this planet just magically appeared one day? Earth was blank, then *poof* , animals and insects and plant life everywhere. hehehe.

Well I certainly don't believe that life evolved out of a slimy pond. Mathematically, the odds of the simplest bacteria randomly forming by itself are so small as to being impossible. And then is has to survive and reproduce all on its own surround by various acids and compounds that will destroy it? Yeah, riiight.

When I look at the complexities of the world around us I find it laughable that scientists say that evolution is proven fact. It's a much bigger leap of faith to believe that everything evolved by pure chance than to believe in intelligent design.

And no, I'm not on the fence. I'm a creationist. However I believe everyone has the right to believe in whatever they want to believe. Free will, etc. But at least have the balls to say that evolution is a belief system - because that's exactly what it is. If you can't see that it means you've simply been indoctrinated into thinking that it's possible for complex organisms and systems to evolve randomly.

As an example. how did natural flight evolve? A bird with hollow bones but no feathers would be wiped out very quickly. A bird with feathers but without hollow bones would also be screwed. A bird with feathers and hollow bones but without sufficient lungs and chest muscles would also not survive very long. You don't slowly evolve into a bird. When you add one of the parts required for flight, you are at risk of being eaten by predators before you evolve the rest of the requried parts to make your escape by air. Yes, I believe a bird did just pop into existence because there's no way it would've survived a slow evolution towards flight.

EVOLUTION is a fact there's no disputing it. It occurs. Look at all the different breeds of dog we've produced

That's not evolution. Micro-evolution maybe. But at the end of it, they're all still dogs.

Anyway, enough of this crap. I believe in x, other people believe in y. That doesn't mean we can't team up in a squad for some base capping. BF2 time.

Evolution is a belief system. You are right. ;)

A belief in facts, not story tales. :)

And evo is more than just pure chance. There are 100's or more factors involved.

I fully endorse your squad action proposal. BF 2 time also at 6pm.

eu4ia: I will ask again, please read this article.

It addresses every one of the 'flaws' in evolution you just put forward, which happen to be the main arguments of ID against evolution.

Here's a snippet that might get you interested:

those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being
adequately supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is supported by
no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they
demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, but assume that their own
needs none.

seriously dude, read it and get your facts straight.

I dont mind them teaching it aslong as it's taught in a relgion class.

we learnt about creationism and evolution in my religion class

eu4ia needs to watch more discovery channel

last edited by ravn0s at 16:07:57 03/Sep/05

the odds of the simplest bacteria randomly forming by itself are so small as to being impossible. And then is has to survive and reproduce all on its own surround by various acids and compounds that will destroy it? Yeah, riiight.

But your almighty god with the power to create this bacteria and anything else can just pop into existence?

Discovery channel for the win.

Shad: i hear ya dude, if it's taught in an Religion class, then it's fine by me.

Thing is that if they teach it in Religion class, then they might as well just teach straight creationism and skip the Intelligent Design camoflague.

They specifically want ID taught in science class as a scientific 'alternative' to evolution theory. Thats the f***ed part :(


last edited by korbs at 16:21:51 03/Sep/05

The biggest debate in my mind regarding the origin of species is whether birds and crocodilians (crocodiles, alligators etc.) are actually offshoots of mammals rather than dinosaurs/reptiles.

And I am thankful for evolution that the people rallying to support it cannot even spell "Intelligent Design". Irony++

Edit: This quote from the second article sums it all up:

But it no more belongs in a biology class than alchemy belongs in a chemistry class, phlogiston in a physics class or the stork theory in a sex education class.

last edited by N-Dude at 16:47:29 03/Sep/05

You mean that Earth wasn't created by mice solely as a means to caclulate the answer to the ultimate question?

Go Korbs!

This is just not on, only the one true faith needs be taught in schools. Doubters, unbelievers and heratics aught to be burned at the stake!

Intelligent design, hmmmph! A stoning offence if I ever saw one.

Now that I've merrily blown away a few tanks and been murdered by team mates, I am happy. :P

those who cavalierly reject the Theory of Evolution as not being adequately supported by facts, seem to forget that their own theory is supported by no facts at all. Like the majority of men who are born to a given belief, they demand the most rigorous proof of any adverse belief, but assume that their own needs none.

Point out these "facts" supporting evolution and then compare them to the "facts" supporting creationism. You'll find the discussions are similar, looking at similar things, but based on two opposite pre-existing and biased view points.

When a scientist says water is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom I agree. Because it's testable. And the same applies to many bodies of science. But I strongly disagree when someone says macro evolution is
the reason for all life. It's far fetched to the point of being silly. It falls outside the bounds of true science.

I didn't read all of that article, but I did scan it. And I've seen many articles written supporting creationism that looked very similar.

I'm not out to prove my point of view. I'm happy to believe it. I get annoyed when people try to sell their beliefs as fact (evolution) and claim they have the only view on how the universe was made and then bitch that creationists are too stubborn to look at other points of view. It's hypocrisy. I've spent a lot of time looking at this from both sides. I wasn't in the creationist camp my whole life... I weighed up the view points, their arguments, and chose the side that made most sense to me from a logical view point. It's a smaller leap of faith to believe in a creator than to believe in random evolution.

That's why I support the teaching of all view points. Let individuals make up their own minds. It can't hurt science because as I said, many areas of science won't be affected by scientists believing in one or another origin theory. Evolutionists wonder how something happens, while creationists wonder how God made it happen. As long as scientific method is followed during various experiments, advancements will continue to be made into our understanding of the universe for the improvement of our society.

Nah i reckon go for it... let the kids decide for themselves which theory is supported more by fact than fiction.

In primary school they had relegios studies and i very quickly decided it was just a fanciful story and asked not to have to take the class anymore.

xy says what we are all thinking (those of us that think, im sure the sheep dont like hearing it)

That's why I support the teaching of all view points. Let individuals make up their own minds.

Such common sense and wisdom could get you into trouble.

I don't see the point in teaching ID.

Anyone teaching science should teach that evolution is a threory (the currently most accepted one), but not one that is unlikely to change.

ID itself is a modified version of genesis, because genesis on its own wouldn't hold much weight. Evolution evolved (lol) from Darwin's Natural Selection.

I'm not out to prove my point of view.

That's ALL religious people do, is try to push or prove thier point of view to others. lol.

It's a smaller leap of faith to believe in a creator than to believe in random evolution.

That's because "a creator" is about faith. Evo does not involve faith. Thus creationisim requires a smaller leap of faith than evo. :)

Let individuals make up their own minds.

You know that's not the common action. Many people just stick to the ways they are taught, it's just easier.

creationists wonder how God made it happen.

A long time ago people wondered how "god" made earthquakes and thunder and lightening happen too. Infact, you can still find these people even today, like in remote parts of PNG for example.

Creationist knowledge is based on assumptions & guesses. Just like isolated jungle tribes still think bad weather is caused by angry gods or evil spirits.

Evolutionists knowledge is based on knowing how things really happen through research and then documenting what they find. Where is the research about the "creator" and documentation on it?

Outside of religious establishments creationisim is completely discredited and i think we can leave it at that.

As long as scientific method is followed during various experiments, advancements will continue to be made into our understanding of the universe for the improvement of our society.

You make a good point there. And it is true and i agree. Advancement will continue to happen regardless of what people think.

u dont need to learn ID to get into any science based uni coarse .
its an ideology not a science.
so why teach it as a science when it is clearly not science.
teach it but not as a science .

eu4ia do u believe the earth is only 10,000 years old?

Well I certainly don't believe that life evolved out of a slimy pond. Mathematically, the odds of the simplest bacteria randomly forming by itself are so small as to being impossible. And then is has to survive and reproduce all on its own surround by various acids and compounds that will destroy it? Yeah, riiight.

Well you know funny thing is as small as that probability might be it's still possible for a billion and one thing just to fall into place at the very single moment in time and space and *bam* all sorts of chain reaction starts. What a fluke eh?

I mean what are the odds of earth being at the just the right distance from the Sun, had just enough atmosphere (so thin that if it were a skin on a fruit it'd be thinner than the width of human hair) to support life.

If you think the odds are pretty pretty slim then you're right - at least in our solar system. But then again, think of the size of our Galaxy alone and the number of stars in it - there are more stars in this Galaxy than there are grain of sands on all the beaches on this planet alone.

Then think of the size of the Universe, containing literally billion of Galaxies (most of which we can't see). It's so big and so old that light take billion of years to travel across it. Suddenly that very small odds becomes not quite so small on that astronomical scale.

Some people think in such small, localised terms - earth, this solar system and that's it. Look up in the sky and wonder sometimes, you might think twice about that very minute odds you seems to think "impossible" on this dirt ball :).

Not that I'm out to convert you or anything, but this is what I found and that's why I think ID, genesis or whatever rebadged "theory" based on religion, to be less belivable than a "fluked" evolution theory. :).

"Teach all viewpoints", "keep and open mind" and all other ID rhetoric sounds completely innocuous, but remember that they have already defined the goals of their agenda (taken from the 'source' link in the original post):

Governing Goals

* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.

Five Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as an accepted alternative in the sciences and scientific research being done from the perspective of design theory.
* To see the beginning of the influence of design theory in spheres other than natural science.
* To see major new debates in education, life issues, legal and personal responsibility pushed to the front of the national agenda.

Twenty Year Goals

* To see intelligent design theory as the dominant perspective in science.
* To see design theory application in specific fields, including molecular biology, biochemistry, paleontology, physics and cosmology in the natural sciences, psychology, ethics, politics, theology and philosophy in the humanities; to see its innuence in the fine arts.
* To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

oh yeah, they just want us to 'keep an open mind' *roll eyes*


last edited by korbs at 18:44:35 03/Sep/05

Gee Korbs, after reading that list of goals, it almost sounds like a cult type movement. That could just be my understanding though.

Aye Carrumba!!!
To see it used in physics?!?!?!

I can just imagine a rocket pwered by faith and belief soaring across the universe bwahahaha!!!

Who cares if it's powered by faith - as long as it makes pretty colours in the sky. :P Riverfire ftw!

And don't worry - to talk about creationism being used in physics... what the? Whether or not it just happened or if God created it, how does that effect the motion of planetary bodies, etc? Or how light refracts, or gravity works, or our understanding of the atom, etc? It doesn't. Evolution doesn't affect physics so why should creationism?

A_W: is this a piece of your brain? .

i completely support ID theory

http://games.kikizo.com/media/initial_d/idart.jpg

Super Late Braking ftw

Just like isolated jungle tribes still think bad weather is caused by angry gods or evil spirits.

and just how people used to think that the world was flat and dragons patrolled the edges? all these people pushing their views, either way in 50 years time what difference will it make when you're dead? just relax and have a good time, whatever time is.

I dunno about you guys but I hate being told that my life's goal is to end up as fertilizer!

hate not being told!

Evolutionists knowledge is based on knowing how things really happen through research and then documenting what they find. Where is the research about the "creator" and documentation on it?

The Koran.

Hey Korbs I've got a spare tin foil hat you can borrow.

Frankly I'll give students a bit more credit and allow them to make up thier own minds.

you suck maxe, this id is way better
http://images.ausimages.com/upload/2005-09-03/id_logo.jpg

The Quran is a story book that also includes teachings of how to live your life and what, what not to do. Just like the bible.

And agreed with whoop, that's a much better ID. :)

The Koran.

To qoute Captain Hero: "Have you read koran? It's mostly knock-knock jokes and..."

School has never been about helping humanity understand the true nature of the universe. It has always been about conforming young animals into social beings. Intelligent Design may be bulls***, it certainly isn't science, but a lot of people in this culture believe it.

Well I certainly don't believe that life evolved out of a slimy pond. Mathematically, the odds of the simplest bacteria randomly forming by itself are so small as to being impossible. And then is has to survive and reproduce all on its own surround by various acids and compounds that will destroy it? Yeah, riiight.

Uh yeah but in 400 billion years of cooling molten Earth, and seas of enzyme chains, it had to happen once. Exactly once.

But chances are it has happened more than once since then.

last edited by Idol at 07:22:53 04/Sep/05

A religious topic and we've gone 3 pages without a single WhiteWolf post. What is the world coming to??? He may have changed his name but if he hasn't, he's putting up a poor show for his faith.

What is the world coming to???

ask the Creationists, I hear they have it all figured out

pfft science is really just another religion, except that its smart in how it presents itself, it only claims what it already know exists, instead of cool s*** like smiting stuff.

Why science is 'fact' rather then 'religion'? Merely because everytime a part of it is disproved, it changes itself, rather then defending itself, so it is never wrong :)

In 100 years time, 'science' of today will be proven completely false, exactly the same as religion is now: a few hundred years ago when anyone who said the planet was round was burnt alive.

Science should stop being such a pussy mofo and start embracing cool s*** like smiting and creator races and dragons, at least then it may become interesting.

ID is an ideology

peotry is more scientifiic

god plz save me from your followers

all we got to do to prove evolution beyond any doubt is find life on other planets..

i personally dont really care where we came from or how it happend, all's i know is we are here and thats all that matters, if monkeys really are ours uncles, well that explains alot of the idiots in the world, if not then meh...

where i grew up i didnt learn evolution, well thats not true they mentioned it in biology, but it wasnt really explained nor tought fully, i guess it would have been nice to learn both theorys, so imo as long as they teach these types of theorys in religon class, since they are based on religon, then there really shouldnt be a big deal, peole are free to beleve what ever they want.

so find us some life on other planets and put this dispute to rest..

A religious topic and we've gone 3 pages without a single WhiteWolf post. What is the world coming to??? He may have changed his name but if he hasn't, he's putting up a poor show for his faith.

I'm blushing!

i don't think its really required that they teach creationism "id" in high school. if everyone knows how it goes. evolution is fine to be the only tought thing. aslong as the little tykes know that there are alternative theorys out there, then they can be free to make up there own mind on what they wish to study and what to belive. personally i think that evolution leaves out too bigger gaps to be compleatly correct, or even logically acceptable. however it does go into the nitty gritty details on how things happend and WHY, which is something the bible fails miserably at. which is why its also difficult for me to accept the bible as an accurate account of what happend. because its not accurate at all. its very broad in its explinations.

if you want my oppinion (which i know you do. cause you feel like lauging at the sheep :) ) i think you shoudl go make up your own mind. neither can be correct by its self. evolution needs to explain alot more before becomeing acceptable. and so does creationism. neither are satisfactory in explaining how we came about.

all we got to do to prove evolution beyond any doubt is find life on other planets

all that proves is that god put other animals on other planets.


not really. im just saying that it won't really do all that much for either argument.

personally i think that evolution leaves out too bigger gaps to be compleatly correct, or even logically acceptable.

i think i can safely assume that you haven't done much reading on the subject then.
The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. I can guarantee you that these 'gaps' you speak of do not exist (or have been 'filled'), just spend 15 minutes looking for it. If you want some good reading, go borrow any Richard Dawkins book from the library. I highly recommend The Selfish Gene, The Extended Phenotype, The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden and Climbing Mount Improbable.

pfft science is really just another religion, except that its smart in how it presents itself, it only claims what it already know exists, instead of cool s*** like smiting stuff.

I'm going to take your post as tongue in cheek, but here, i'll explain the difference for you anyway

Science: "Hey guys, lets observe the world around us and see how things work and try to figure out where we came from."

Religion: "Hey guys, our book of bronze-age mythology says that there is an all-powerful creator who created everything as it is now. Let's work backwards and make everything try to fit with what it says in the book"








last edited by korbs at 13:27:11 04/Sep/05

i think i can safely assume that you haven't done much reading on the subject then.

not really. don't assume that because i don't hold your views that i don't know what im talking about.

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

that maybe so, but like i said, there are big gaps.

Why did single celled organims become multi cell organims?

also been mentioned in this thread.. BIRDs, how did they manage to sucsesfully evolve without becoming extinct.

there is no filler. evolution makes too many jumps to conclusions. (ie mammals from reptiles? where was it convenient to insulate a cold blooded creature?)

im not saying evolution is wrong. im just saying they are atleast missing something major. too many un explainable events with the current theory.

in the end, there is a good case for both for and against both theorys, and the evolutionists that say that creationism is wrong are sheep just like creationists that say evolution is wrong. For gods sake get over yourself and accept that someone else might be right.

last edited by WhiteWolf at 13:42:37 04/Sep/05

I didn't say that becasue your views different from mine, but because you made the comment that evolution is 'logically unacceptable'. You can disagree with evoltion all you like, thats cool, but when you actually claim that it is a logical fallacy, then you seriously have your facts wrong.

All the evidence for evolution is there, if you only take the trouble to read up on it.


ninja editing eh ? ok, two can play that game

Why did single celled organims become multi cell organims?

also been mentioned in this thread.. BIRDs, how did they manage to sucsesfully evolve without becoming extinct.

there is no filler. evolution makes too many jumps to conclusions. (ie mammals from reptiles? where was it convenient to insulate a cold blooded creature?)

im not saying evolution is wrong. im just saying they are atleast missing something major. too many un explainable events with the current theory.

And as i have said, ALL of these 'gaps' have been 'filled', not with assumptions and conjecture, but with fossil evidence. Holy s***, how many times do i need to say this.

All the information is out there, but you are the one who has to read it. If you would rather not, then i suppose you really are, as you claim, just a sheep.

For gods sake get over yourself and accept that someone else might be right.

Coming from you (a man of faith), i find this statement deliciously ironic.



last edited by korbs at 14:02:13 04/Sep/05

A religious topic and we've gone 3 pages without a single WhiteWolf post

that wasnt an invitation to come in and speak your s***

They should only teach "ID theory" in special schools because I reckon the students there would have the greatest chance of being able to grasp the subject matter.

korbs, the jury is still out on evolution. There are major gaps in the theory of evolution that are acknowledged by many scientists. Instead of reading only one side of the argument, how about reading both sides? I did and found it really interesting.

Some of the things that I wasn't aware of or hadn't considered before my research:

1) The statistics of how impossible it is for life to start by itself considering the age of the universe - there just hasn't been enough time to allow it to randomly occur. As an example, for a self replicating system to come about, 75 proteins each containing hundreds of amino acids must combine in a very specific way. Even when ignoring interfering compounds (right-handed amino acids, etc) and assuming they could join together faster than they fall apart (which is the norm), statistically the probability of it is something in the order of 3 x 10^9700. Yep, 9700 zeros. And all those amino acids have to be in the same place at the same time to interact with one another. If they were a week too early, they would just break down again. Life forming out of nothing is pure unadulterated fantasy aimed at removing God from our lives.

2) The co-dependency of all creatures and eco-systems. Even at the micro scale, all life requires other life to survive. Everything had to appear at the same time - even further reducing the odds of it occurring by accident.

3) The lack of proof of macro evolution - if it is the driving force of life there should be a myriad of examples around us.

4) Just how complex dna and the cell are. The fact that dna contains instructions on how to create itself. It’s a case of circular existence - chicken or the egg syndrome.

5) The eye. How on earth did that slowly evolve? What value (advantage towards survival) could it have given until it was fully evolved?

oh, ofcoures the gaps have been filled. but im looking at why. which can not be explained sufficiently.

Coming from you (a man of faith), i find this statement deliciously ironic.

Don't make assumptions about me please. christians vary widely in oppinion just like the rest of man kind. don't generalise.

whitewolf needs to watch more discovery channel too

1) The statistics of how impossible it is for life to start by itself considering the age of the universe - there just hasn't been enough time to allow it to randomly occur. As an example, for a self replicating system to come about, 75 proteins each containing hundreds of amino acids must combine in a very specific way. Even when ignoring interfering compounds (right-handed amino acids, etc) and assuming they could join together faster than they fall apart (which is the norm), statistically the probability of it is something in the order of 3 x 10^9700. Yep, 9700 zeros. And all those amino acids have to be in the same place at the same time to interact with one another. If they were a week too early, they would just break down again. Life forming out of nothing is pure unadulterated fantasy aimed at removing God from our lives.

Chemistry is not random, and probability after the fact is meaningless.

2) The co-dependency of all creatures and eco-systems. Even at the micro scale, all life requires other life to survive. Everything had to appear at the same time - even further reducing the odds of it occurring by accident.

Autotrophs do not require other organisms to survive, it is almost certain that the first life on earth was autotrophic and this created a niche to be filled by heterotrophs and so on.

3) The lack of proof of macro evolution - if it is the driving force of life there should be a myriad of examples around us.

Macroevolution is just alot of microevolution, this is just a poor attempt by creationists to play the word game. But even so: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

4) Just how complex dna and the cell are. The fact that dna contains instructions on how to create itself. It’s a case of circular existence - chicken or the egg syndrome.

It's not a problem because no one expects fully formed cells to be the immediate product of abiogenesis. Something more along the lines of chemicals -> polymers -> replicating polymers -> hypercycle -> protobiont -> bacteria

Sounds very convenient so here are some references for you;
Curr Opin Chem Biol. 1997 Dec;1(4):491-6
Proc Natl Acad Sci USA, 95: 6854-6859
Cell, 85: 793-8, 1996
Eigen M, and Schuster P, The hypercycle. A principle of natural self-organization. Springer-Verlag, isbn 3-540-09293, 1979

5) The eye. How on earth did that slowly evolve? What value (advantage towards survival) could it have given until it was fully evolved?

The ability to detect light to orient oneself accordingly is an advantage even for single celled organisms such as Dinoflagellates. As for what the average person would consider an eye it isn't much of a leap at all. There is a video here: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html that explains it (you'll need quicktime, and firefox doesn't seem to like the popup)

last edited by Rommel at 15:10:00 04/Sep/05

alright guys, if you really want to know the truth just ask jesus, err I mean trog, I think
http://images.ausimages.com/upload/2005-09-04/jesustrog.gif

last edited by whoop at 15:11:40 04/Sep/05

Ive had lecturers at university say that evolutionary theory is still not 100% proven but I dont think that should be used as an example of why ID is valid. The evidence is so horrendously overwhelming in evolutions side.

ID cant ever be proven until the day god comes down to play and lets us know how it was. You cannot prove something that requires 'faith' and it seems like ID just plays this hand. Its always the ID guys saying that evolution has gaps and I dont see how its fair when ID has far and away the most gaps in its evidence. Evolution has been actively attempted to be proven and it is still far and away the best bet, after all the research done it still holds water. Incorrect assumptions are modified to include findings and the case continues to grow in strength. These small gaps that exist because one cannot demonstrate evolution are about as fair to prey on as most of ID.

In the end who gives a s***. Let these insane conservatives believe what they want. If they want to get into university science they will have to learn evolution and I will continue to laugh when people who were not, fail to gain university entry and then have a cry about it. I believe they have been adequatly warned by now. Hell, even the vatican will teach evolution and they were the most conservative religious force. Sounds like the 'bible belt' has taken that role.

Don't make assumptions about me please.

All the assumptions made about you are generally based off retarded things you have said, from 'time travelling god' to 'kaygen's daughter died because of sin'.

I'd tell you to stop saying retarded things but the damage has been done. It also seems you have stopped. You are much more of a fence-sitter now which is understandable after being shot down 1000 times. Good to see you are capable of learning at least one thing.

last edited by fpot at 15:16:08 04/Sep/05

eu4ia: Your first 4 points (probability,co-dependency,macro evolution & irreducible complexity) have been addressed and proven wrong in dozens of peer reviewed scientific journals.

Perhaps the best thing you could do would be to borrow a copy of 'climbing Mount Improbbable' by Prof. Richard Dawkins. It explains pretty much all the points you raised in an easy to understand manner.

but as for your last point:

the eye. How on earth did that slowly evolve? What value (advantage towards survival) could it have given until it was fully evolved?

I will respond with this quote from Prof. Jerry Coyne from The dept of ecology at the university of Chicago.

Consider the eye. Creationists have long maintained that it could not have resulted from natural selection, citing a sentence from On the Origin of Species: "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

But in the next passage, invariably omitted by creationists, Darwin ingeniously answers his own objection:

"Reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a simple and imperfect eye to
one complex and perfect can be shown to exist, each grade being useful to its
possessor, as is certainly the case; if further, the eye ever varies and the variations be inherited, as is likewise certainly the case and if such variations should be useful to any animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, should not be considered as subversive of the theory."

Thus our eyes did not suddenly appear as full-fledged camera eyes, but evolved
from simpler eyes, having fewer components, in ancestral species. Darwin
brilliantly addressed this argument by surveying existing species to see if one
could find functional but less complex eyes that not only were useful, but also
could be strung together into a hypothetical sequence showing how a camera eye
might evolve. If this could be done--and it can--then the argument for irreduciblecomplexity vanishes, for the eyes of existing species are obviously useful, and each step in the hypothetical sequence could thus evolve by natural selection.

A possible sequence of such changes begins with pigmented eye spots (as seen in
flatworms), followed by an invagination of the skin to form a cup protecting the
eyespot and allowing it to better localize the image (as in limpets), followed by a further narrowing of the cup's opening to produce an improved image (the
nautilus), followed by the evolution of a protective transparent cover to protect the opening (ragworms), followed by coagulation of part of the fluid in the eyeball into a lens to help focus the light (abalones), followed by the co-opting of nearby muscles to move the lens and vary the focus (mammals). The evolution of a retina, an optic nerve, and so on would follow by natural selection.

Each step of this transitional "series" confers increased adaptation on its possessor, because it enables the animal to gather more light or to form better images, both of which aid survival. And each step of this process is exemplified by the eye of a different living speies. At the end of the sequence we have the camera eye, which seems
irreducibly complex. But the complexity is reducible to a series of small, adaptive
steps.
Now, we do not know the precise order in which the components of the camera
eye evolved--but the point is that the appearance of "irreducible complexity"
cannot be an argument against neo-Darwinism if we can document a plausible
sequence in which the complexity can arise from a series of adaptive steps. The
"irreducible complexity" argument is not, in fact, completely novel. It descends,
with modification, from the British theologian William Paley, who in 1802 raised
the famous "argument from design" in his book Natural Theology. Paley argued
that just as finding a watch on the ground implies a conscious designer (the
watchmaker), so finding an equally complex organism implies a cosmic designer
(God).
But the eye is not a watch. The human eye, though eminently functional, is
imperfect--certainly not the sort of eye an engineer would create from scratch. Its
imperfection arises precisely because our eye evolved using whatever components
were at hand, or produced by mutation. Since our retina evolved from an everted
part of the brain, for example, the nerves and blood vessels that attach to our
photoreceptor cells are on the inside rather than the outside of the eye, running over the surface of the retina. Leakage of these blood vessels can occlude vision, a problem that would not occur if the vessels fed the retina from behind.

Likewise, to get the nerve impulses from the photocells to the brain, the different nerves must join together and dive back through the eye, forming the optic nerve. This hole in the retina creates a blind spot in the eye, a flaw that again would be avoidable with a priori design. The whole system is like a car in which all the wires to the dashboard hang inside the driver's compartment instead of being tucked safely out of sight. Evolution differs from a priori design because it is constrained to operate by modifying whatever features have evolved previously.

Thus evolution yields fitter types that often have flaws. These flaws violate
reasonable principles of intelligent design. IDers tend to concentrate more on biochemistry than on organs such as the eye, citing "irreducibly complex" molecular systems such as the mechanism for bloodclotting and the immune system. Like the eye, these systems supposedly could not have evolved, since removal of any step in these pathways would render the entire pathway non-functional. (This biochemical complexity is the subject of Behe's book Darwin's Black Box.) Discussing the blood-clotting system in its sixth chapter (partially written by Behe), Pandas asserts that "like a car engine, biological systems can only work after they have been assembled by someone who knows what the final result will be." This is nonsense. As we have seen in the case
of the eye, biological systems are not useful only at the end of a long evolutionary process, but during every step of that process. And biochemical systems--like all adaptations created by natural selection--are not assembled with foresight.

Whatever useful mutations happen to arise get folded into the system.
There is no doubt that many biochemical systems are dauntingly complex. A
diagram of the blood-clotting pathway looks like a complicated circuit board, with dozens of proteins interacting with one another to one end: healing a wound. And the system seems irreducibly complex, because without any of several key proteins, the blood would not clot. Yet such biochemical systems evolved in the same way that the eye evolved, by adding parts successively and adaptively to simpler, functioning systems.

It is more difficult to trace the evolution of biochemical pathways than of anatomical structures because the ancestral metabolic pathways are no longer present. But biologists are beginning to provide plausible scenarios for how "irreducibly complex" biochemical pathways might have evolved. As expected, these systems involve using bits co-opted from other pathways originally having different functions. (Thus, one of the enzymes in the blood-clotting system also plays a role in digestion and cell division.) In view of our progress in understanding biochemical evolution, it is simply irrational to say that because we do not completely understand how biochemical pathways evolved, we should give up trying and invoke the intelligent designer. If the history of science shows us anything, it is that we get nowhere by labeling our ignorance "god".

Whitewolf:

oh, ofcoures the gaps have been filled. but im looking at why. which can not be explained sufficiently.

Evolution answers the 'how we got here' question It has never sought to asnswer the 'why are we here' question. Thats the job of the philosophers, and a question for another thread. Maybe you could start one about that topic.

last edited by korbs at 15:47:20 04/Sep/05

eu4ia said: Life forming out of nothing is pure unadulterated fantasy aimed at removing God from our lives.

It wasn't there in the first place. So if "god" can be put into our lives, "god" can be removed from our lives too. There is no fantasy in that supposed aim.

You must remember religion is man made and thus can be changed, fixed, chopped, editied, updated, removed so on as people see fit. It's not something impossible, like trying to change the fact that the sky is blue.

Also i think what you just said reeks of conspiracy theory. oh noes! "they" are out to get you and your beliefs.

*edit* That's some highly interesting stuff you've quoted korbs. Good reading. */edit*

last edited by A_W at 15:52:04 04/Sep/05

Life forming out of nothing is pure unadulterated fantasy aimed at removing God from our lives.

I HAD to comment on this becuase it was hilarious. Life didnt come from nothing. At the most basic level we are all just made out of billions and billlions of atoms of the most fundamental elements of earth. The hypothesis was proven quite a while back when the primordial soup experiment was done. The soup was zapped with electricity and basic proteins were formed. Its clear evidence that single cell organisms could have arrisen from just 'chemicals'

As for your comment on how unlikely a random coming together of molecules is, well its totally retarded becuase the understanding of how DNA and proteins are formed makes this comment totally nonsensical. The whole point is that ITS NOT RANDOM AT ALL. The shape proteins take to enable it to perform certain roels are ALL related to the chemical interactions between the electrical charge on each of the amino-acids. Its not random, its chemistry and physics. And you cannot say there are gaps there.

sigh.

where did matter come from.

it takes one leap of faith to get from nothing to the start of something. whether that leap of faith is in the fundamental law of the universe, or whether its religion, its still a leap of faith.

Agreed Tung,

But atm, they teach Big Bang theory in science class, and biblical 7-day creation in Religious studies. This is cool.

It would be a bit f***ed if your school decided to teach biblical creation in science class.

5) The eye. How on earth did that slowly evolve? What value (advantage towards survival) could it have given until it was fully evolved?

Mollusks, go research them...

Also, Since no-one has shown those who want Intelligent Design tought in schools as a science should go and read about:

Flying Spaghetti Monsterism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster

* The Universe was created by an invisible and undetectable Flying Spaghetti Monster. All evidence pointing towards evolution was intentionally planted by this being.
* Global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct consequence of the decline in numbers of pirates since the 1800s. A graph showing the inverse correlation between the pirates and global temperatures was also provided. This was presumably intended to highlight the logical fallacy of correlation implying causation.
* Bobby Henderson is the "prophet" of this religion.

Pirates are good, they keep the world from disaster.

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

yeah korbs, im not saying against that. its just that its hypocritical and bigoted to say that if you believe in religion you are believing in something that cant be proved and therefore you are wrong.

its frustrating that these people that are such avid supporters of science and evolution cant apply the scientific method to realise that both are in the same boat per se

i dont see anything wrong with teaching intelligent design as a theory. theories are made to be disproven and then reworked to be disproven another day.

thompsons plum pudding model of the atom?

go ahead, teach it, in a science classroom might make it a more interesting place for discussion too, but dont proclaim it as an axiom

May His Noodly Appendage bless you all.

i dont see anything wrong with teaching intelligent design as a theory. theories are made to be disproven and then reworked to be disproven another day.

The problem is that it is unfalsifiable (i.e. it cannot be tested by the scientific method). It cannot be taught as a scientific theory, it simply does not meet the criteria. If it were to be presented in a religious studies or philosophy class that would be different.

last edited by Rommel at 17:48:20 04/Sep/05

macro evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method. the big bang and other scientific creation theories cannot be tested. we are looking at a product and trying to find out the first step. just because you can apply scientific values to the big bang theory doesnt mean its tried and tested.

albeit you do have the point that you cannot apply calculable values to intelligent design, but as food for thought in a classroom where big bang and macro evolution takes the stage, its a nice change of pace.

Rommel is right. And that graph of pirates to global temperature is amusing.

yeah korbs, im not saying against that. its just that its hypocritical and bigoted to say that if you believe in religion you are believing in something that cant be proved and therefore you are wrong.

i agree, i don't think i ever said religion is 'wrong', i just think the biblical explanation for life coming to exist is incorrect.

its frustrating that these people that are such avid supporters of science and evolution cant apply the scientific method to realise that both are in the same boat per se

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by this, could you please clarify ?

i dont see anything wrong with teaching intelligent design as a theory. theories are made to be disproven and then reworked to be disproven another day.

thompsons plum pudding model of the atom?

You study science or engineering at uni if i recall corectly, so i'm sure that in order for something to be considered 'scientific theory', it has to meet various criteria, the main one being that it can be rigourously tested in the real world (and often proven wrong-as with thompsons model). ID & creationism do not meet this criteria, so should not fall under the blanket of science.

go ahead, teach it, in a science classroom might make it a more interesting place for discussion too, but dont proclaim it as an axiom

Well, thats the problem i guess. The ID proponents don't want it put into the science class for some interesting discussion in a friday afternoon period. They want it put next to evolution theory as a valid 'scientific alternative' theory - which it clearly isn't.

last edited by korbs at 18:00:17 04/Sep/05

its all well teaching it in religion and philosophy, but some people just dont really exercise their full knowledge base in those subjects :p

i mean you arent trying to convert people here, but by throwing this out there, it will hopefully make more people sit up and realise that there is still a far far way to go before we have any real development in our scientific theories. imagine if people just sat back and accepted what was current :S sif we would have excitable atoms!

okay, so as for throwing it in as a valid scientific theory, i guess i shift position on that one.

i wasnt pointing the finger at you being hypocritical and bigoted, ive seen it on these forums heaps of times, just a lash out at those people :p

the same boat comment, thats the whole we have a gap to fill and this is a theory as to what fits in the gap. it kinda works with the system and doesnt seem to cause any issues, so yeah.

the religion universe system and the scientific universe system differ greatly, but the taking a leap is a common thing. and its been the foundation of all of our theories for eons. throw something out there. if it doesnt work, hopefully someone will take the effort to disprove it and go with something else.

point taken re: scientific theory for plum pudding model. i guess ether wouldve been a better example :p

i mean you arent trying to convert people here, but by throwing this out there, it will hopefully make more people sit up and realise that there is still a far far way to go before we have any real development in our scientific theories. imagine if people just sat back and accepted what was current :S sif we would have excitable atoms!

The ID movement isn't a criticism-by-example of current scientific methodology, it's a full-blown religious movement.

Take a look at the list of goals the ID movement have given themselves (i posted it back on page 2 or 3 -taken from the 'souce' link in the original post). They very much are trying to convert people using ID as a wedge to get biblical creationism into schools.

I mean look at their last 20 year goal:

To see design theory permeate our religious, cultural, moral and political life.

seems to me like they're trying to turn our secular society into an theological one.

aah that sucks.

well my points still stand :p food for thought means progress. its easy to be bigoted and hypocritical whether you are religion or science, so realise we are nowhere near understanding how our universe works, and be good to your mother.

macro evolution cannot be tested by the scientific method. the big bang and other scientific creation theories cannot be tested. we are looking at a product and trying to find out the first step. just because you can apply scientific values to the big bang theory doesnt mean its tried and tested.

Predictions are made based on these theories and evidence has been discovered to support (some would go so far as to say confirm) them. The Big Bang has red-shift, cosmic microwave background radiation, baryon-to-photon ratios etc. Of course most people don't have this in mind when they think about Science (particularly in this case; Physics), but historical Science is no less valid. You cannot run "big bang experiments" but you can quite easily make predictions with these theories and search for experimental evidence that confirms or falsifies. If it is confirmed then you have added another phenomenon that any replacing theory will have to explain and you continue predicting and searching for evidence. If the evidence contradicts the prediction then the theory must be reworked so that all the previous confirmations are still explained ete etc.

albeit you do have the point that you cannot apply calculable values to intelligent design, but as food for thought in a classroom where big bang and macro evolution takes the stage, its a nice change of pace.

You don't need calculable values, all you need is a prediction. ID lays claim to explaining everything, the problem is that they are all ad hoc explanations. If they want respect from the Scientific community and a place in the High School Science classroom ID proponents need to make predictions, collect evidence, write up their findings and submit them to peer review in Scientific journals. The current movement is entirely political, real science doesn't need to be shoe-horned into high schools by religious and political operatives. It starts at the top and works its' way down based on importance. None of this applies how ever if it is to be presented in the appropriate setting for what it is; philosophy.

we have the end point, and we are trying to figure out the start point.

the whole idea of the big bang rides on one of the most ludicrous of statements - that you can get something from nothing. this undermines all that is scientific theory, and so quantum physics and the unified law of everything has been brought in to try and fill these gaps.

macro evolution is something that we have not seen. we have seen interbreeding and therefore genetic changes, and microevolution (such minor changes over such a long time frame) that macroevolution cannot be stated as fact. its certainly a valid theory and one which i believe to be true (down and dirty - the environment affects the subject) but still, its got a long way to go.

reading a few astrophysics texts and seeing discussion over the various different scientific theories for how the universe came into being, really puts it in perspective that there are more 'valid' theories out there that just didnt really take off because not much effort was really persued along those lines. big bang kinda fits for now and weve plugged the gap with quantum physics and the fundamental law, but for how long, thats the question.

Well, thats absolutely right! but the important thing is that there is an ongoing inquiry into the matter, conducted using a logical scientific approach.

Religious Creationism on the other hand is kinda saying "we don't really understand this....ZOMG A WIZARD MUST HAVE DONE IT!"

last edited by korbs at 18:44:43 04/Sep/05

seriously tung how can intelligent design be of any use to scientists .
what every little genetic, chemical and biological turn in the road was done by choice .
bah it has no place in science its ideology

Tung isnt saying ID is wrong or right, just that people shouldnt be so closed mined to accept a theory as fact.

Tung isnt saying ID is wrong or right, just that people shouldnt be so closed mined to accept a theory as fact.

well most people constructively discussing this are almost certainly science students and understand that evolution is theoretically still a 'theory'. (ie. not fact... yet :P)

last edited by Qmass at 20:01:16 04/Sep/05

The truth is out there.... that is all you need to know.

ok, there seems to be a lot of confusion around the word 'theory'. This is something ID takes full advantage of.

We have phrases like "it's just a theory of mine.." or "conspriacy theory" which kinda misrepresent what the word actually means. They are more akin to saying "i reckon that...."

The definition of a scientific theory is (From Oxford dictionary):

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.

So in a scientific context, theory = fact.

You can't just get some random idea, whack the word 'theory' on the end and proclaim it as truth.

There is a process where the idea is tested and checked and once it has gained overwhelming acceptance within the scientific fraternity, can it infact be called a theory (Theory of gravity, theory of relativity are some examples of this).

Evolution is a scientific theory, meaning it is factual.

ID, on the other hand thinks of itself as a 'theory', but it does not meet the criteria established to be called such. They just insert the word in there so people think:

"oh, well both of them are theories, they should probably teach both"

Just because they are both labeled as 'theories' (one incorrectly) does NOT give them equal weight in any comparative sense.


last edited by korbs at 20:25:24 04/Sep/05

Korbs, that is what
Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is all about.. it is saying it is just as valid as ID.

There is no real point in a thread like this.

The side that "wins" is the side with the most supporters for whatever origin of the universe.

There is no point in debating it (unless you are afence sitter) because really it turns into a debate on religious beliefs.

If you are an atheist or something along those lines you support some non "GOD" related origin of the universe. It seems that it doesn't matter what method you support just as long as it isn't a "GOD" related one. People in this category seem to be able to have reasonable debates about the different non "GOD" related methods.

If you are a christian or something along those lines you believe God created the universe.

If you want to change a person's point of view between either major camps of origin of the universe it also affects their religious beliefs or lack there of. That being said, scientists have jumped ship between the two due to research they have undertaken.

So, we pretty much have both our camps set out and no one is going to budge.

Having just read what I have written, its pretty much a ramble about nothing but I will post it anyway as my postcount is low.

thread starter wins because if he ends up losing he'll just delete the thread and cry

Atheists think about God all the time.

God isnt real, God isnt real, God isnt real.

Because, you see, if God was real, they know they are screwed. So they convince themselves it isnt real, say/think it enough and you'll belive it.

Edit: Who knows, perhaps your reality is defined by what you think and believe .

God exists for those who believe .
God dosn't exist for those who believe.

Belive what you want.
Why cant both be correct?


last edited by Tollaz0r! at 23:19:20 04/Sep/05

Why cant both be correct?

they can, providing the crazy whacked out principles of one doesnt hold back the intelligent scientific progression of the other

Or that the intelligent scientific progression of one doesnt hold back the crazy whacked out principles of the other.

Edit:

Perhaps the workings of science require intelligence and logic to understand.
And the workings of the spiritual matters requires craziness and non-logical thinking where 1+1 dosnt have to = 0 to understand.
Maybe thats why we have a brain that can do both..

last edited by Tollaz0r! at 23:52:29 04/Sep/05

I like the perk pack the Flying Spaghetti Monsterism faith gets.
I wonder how i would go about becomming a pastafarian?

*Goes out to buy a pirate costume*

So in a scientific context, theory = fact.

I am going to disagree slightly. From the definition you quoted theory = facts + statements/ideas. Thats what I gathered anyway.

I would like to see some examples of why ID is not a theory.

As has been stated before.
God until he comes down to say hi and drink a beer with us just isnt quantifiable and measurable by scientific standard.

^

Xy for the win. :)

5) The eye. How on earth did that slowly evolve? What value (advantage towards survival) could it have given until it was fully evolved?

I worked with a 'born again' and he always used to fall back on the old 'eye' conjecture..how did it come into existence ect ect... Creationist love this one.

"This is no doubt true of all the implements we use: cameras, cars, computers, and even the watch that Paley reasoned must have had an intelligent designer. How far is it possible to go with trial and error alone? All the way to the human eye and hand and immune system and all the other well-engineered machinery by which we, and all other organisms, solve the problems of life...

Darwin was challenged repeatedly on this matter. Critics would point to the precision and design features of the eye and claim that an organ of this perfection could not possibly have been produced by an accumulation of small changes, each of which made the eye work slightly better. A grossly imperfect eye, which could be improved by this process, would supposedly never evolve in the first place. Slight improvements in one part, such as the retina, would be useless without an exactly matching improvement in another, such as an increased precision of the lens. This is an utterly fallacious kind of reasoning. An improved retina may be useless without an improved lens, but both retinas and lenses are subject to individual variation. Some of the better retinas would be found in individuals who also had better lenses, so that the improvements, on average, could be favored.

The criticisms were also factually erroneous, and their proponents were ignorant of biology. As Darwin pointed out, familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor." (page 13-14)

Another creature to consider is the mole rat. Which theory holds water when the eye of the mole rat is considered? The ancestor of the mole rat presumably used its eyes as it lived above ground and needed them for survival. However, the mole rat has adapted to living underground in complete darkness. Its eyes have become useless--indeed, they have been buried beneath skin and fur and couldn't be used even if the mole rat came into the light. The neurons that were used for sight have been put to better use in the mole rat's brain for other sensory functions. Evolution by natural selection perfectly explains the eyes of a mole rat. A creationist must resort to faith and/or a poor designer.

More over here for your perusal.

last edited by Psycho! at 02:11:00 05/Sep/05

last edited by Psycho! at 02:12:32 05/Sep/05

last edited by Psycho! at 02:12:49 05/Sep/05

I went to a Catholic highschool (Not Catholic myself) and in Studies of Religion classes we were taught several arguments for creation including evolution, big bang theory etc.

Several people on here have said it - absolutely nothing has been backed up with substantial proof/evidence to support any theory (of creation itself - I personaly have no doubt about evolution), and thus they are exactly that - theories. They are options and beliefs about what MAY have happended and they should be treated and taught as such.

After all this Im more worried that an American taught system of belief has become prevalent in our Australian education system. Especially when you consider their over all poor literacy and the low priority of their education system. The fact they want this in a science class is even worse. As far as Im concerned its not where EITHER belief belongs.

The criticisms were also factually erroneous, and their proponents were ignorant of biology. As Darwin pointed out, familiarity with the animal kingdom shows the existence today of just about every stage in a plausible sequence from primitive light-sensitive cells on the surfaces of tiny wormlike animals, through the rudimentary camera eyes of scallops, to the advanced optical instrumentation of squids and vertebrates. Every stage in this sequence is subject to variation, and every stage is clearly useful to its possessor." (page 13-14)

I put forward this alternate explanation for the various levels of complexity in optical systems: When God created the world all creatures had perfect vision (as all of His creation was perfect). Over time as various animals migrated to specific environments their eye sight diminished over generations as perfect vision was no longer was necessary to their survival. This general trend of loss of information has been observed throughout nature. We do not improve with time, we break down. Over generations minor mistakes have been introduced into the reproduction of dna. For example: we are struggling to find the cause of various cancers and are trying to determine why the rate of cancer is increases. We look to environmental and lifestyle factors, but what if it is simply another example of the loss of information. Could it be just another step away from the perfect creation? Examples of evolution put forward by evolutionists are often due to a loss of information rather than a gain.

I just did a quick search on loss of information and found this interesting article.

I just did a quick search on loss of information and found this interesting article.

Why would you waste peoples' time with AiG nonsense? A quick perusal of their statement of faith will show you they don't care about science and will knowingly twist the facts to advance their agenda.

6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

last edited by Rommel at 19:56:11 05/Sep/05

Everyting started out perfect and flawless. And the incalcuable diversity of life now on the planet is the result of backwards changes from the initial beings.

Right...... -_-

Do we have to tip this comedian or is it a free show?

It's wrong that creationist dogma should be taught as science, anywhere. I don't even see why religious classes should be taught in schools... that's what churchs & temples were for I thought! All the main reasons why evolution should be taught as the closest accepted theory have already been covered in this thread. I notice that of all the links people reference for thier arguments in this thread there is a notable difference between the sites that support evolution & the sites that support creationism. The evolution supporting sites usually end in references to scientific studies that describe the relevant empirical data or evidence. The creationist sites, if they have any references & not just analogies, reference other creationist sites with more subjective claims & analogies!

it's amusing that it gets under your skin though

Blah blah blah. Look at my statement from a logical aspect - try to see past the scientific dogma you've been taught: Where's the proof of information being added by evolution and natural selection? I reckon the trend is one of loss of information. There are countless examples of it. Show me an example of information being added to support evolution. Seriously, I'm really interested to hear of one.

As for AIG's statement - can't say I've spent much time at that website. But think about this: Creationists start from the view point of "God exists and created everything" whereas evolutionists start from "There is no god, it's all random". Then both accumulate data to support their position. How is one different from the other? Sure, you can say that scientists would support God if they found proof and that they have open minds and go where the data takes them. But I dispute that. Modern science has stated that it will consider any theory as long as it does not involve religion - even if there is supporting data. So much for an open mind.

For me the data indicates more support for creation than for evolution. Thus my position on the subject.

Ask yourself this: are you a strong supporter of evolution because you've researched both sides and reckon that evolution makes more sense or do you support evolution blindly because that way you neatly cancel out God and thus no longer have to account for your actions before Him?

last edited by eu4ia at 21:07:47 05/Sep/05

"Modern science has stated that it will consider any theory as long as it does not involve religion - even if there is supporting data."

I'd like to know where this was stated and who by exactly...

"Show me an example of information being added to support evolution."

Apes -> Cro magnum -> Neanderthal -> Homo sapien (and perhaps other steps i dont know off the top of my head.)

Look at my statement from a logical aspect - try to see past the scientific dogma you've been taught

do you support evolution blindly because that way you neatly cancel out God and thus no longer have to account for your actions before Him?

The combined irony of these two statements in the same post was so great it crashed my computer. thx dude.

Where's the proof of information being added by evolution and natural selection? I reckon the trend is one of loss of information. There are countless examples of it. Show me an example of information being added to support evolution.

sorry, "i reckon's" don't hold any weight whatsoever, Tested theories, supported with facts and evidence are the only currency here.

creationists start from the view point of "God exists and created everything" whereas evolutionists start from "There is no god, it's all random". Then both accumulate data to support their position. How is one different from the other?

Sorry, thats completely wrong.

Science has the basic premise of "hey dudes, we don't really understand how we came about, so lets observe the natural world, do some experiements and see if we can figure this one out."

Creation says "hey dudes, our holy text says god created everything ok. *whisper: btw, don't listen to those science guys, they are just trying to lead you away from god*"

Science starts with the question "where do we come from ?" and through research, experimentation, evidence gathering and hard work, they conclude that the theory of evolution is the one that best fits the facts.

Religion starts with the premise that we were created by god and works it's way backwards.

Perhaps an analogy would better explain it:

If you equated creationism with an episode of CSI -> They arrive at the crime scene -> They decide on who the murderer is before looking for any evidence -> Then they go about collecting evidence that only supports their decision (and dismissing the rest as unimportant or false).

Surely you can see the backward-ness of reasoning like that.

Sure, you can say that scientists would support God if they found proof and that they have open minds and go where the data takes them. But I dispute that. Modern science has stated that it will consider any theory as long as it does not involve religion - even if there is supporting data. So much for an open mind.

well the problem is that there ISN'T any supporting data, so your whole argument kinda falls in a heap.


last edited by korbs at 22:24:15 05/Sep/05

Blah blah blah. Look at my statement from a logical aspect - try to see past the scientific dogma you've been taught: Where's the proof of information being added by evolution and natural selection? I reckon the trend is one of loss of information. There are countless examples of it. Show me an example of information being added to support evolution. Seriously, I'm really interested to hear of one.

Here are a few journal articles detailing such occurances;

Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
Negoro, S., K. Kato, K. Fujiyama and H. Okada. 1994. The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas. Biodegradation 5: 185-194.
Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.


edit: While you're at it, would you care to explain how Golden Staph (Staphylococcus aureus) continues aquire resistance to pretty much everything you can throw at it by losing information with each new resistance?

last edited by Rommel at 22:13:56 05/Sep/05

last edited by Rommel at 22:14:13 05/Sep/05

last edited by Rommel at 22:19:22 05/Sep/05

Basically creationisim is a load of crap used by the few to brainwash the many. And this thread needs to end. Think that about sums it up. :)

No i personally think this thread is doing good and will be excelent to link to anyone who is fence sitting or doesn't have the facts so as to show them the truth of what is really going on with this political and religios regime.

Zeig Hiel Intelligentes Design!!!

If they teach Intelligent Design in a science class because it is "another theory on evolution", then shouldn't we also teach religon classes from the Koran, Torah, and other sources of religious theory?

Don't forget Zen Buddhism! Monkey was born from an egg on a mountain top, The punkiest monkey that ever popped! Valuable information indeed!

regarding the eye, i think it has developed about 7 times independently. ie squids and dogs.

If they teach Intelligent Design in a science class because it is "another theory on evolution", then shouldn't we also teach religon classes from the Koran, Torah, and other sources of religious theory?

That is exactly what Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is all about.
Dont make me bring out the graph about the decline in pirats and the rise in global warming again..

If you equated creationism with an episode of CSI -> They arrive at the crime scene -> They decide on who the murderer is before looking for any evidence -> Then they go about collecting evidence that only supports their decision (and dismissing the rest as unimportant or false).

you might need to dumb that down for the religious types, perhaps relate it to an episode of 7th heaven?

haha. Too true W.W . And that CSI analogy was spot on. GJ whoever made it. :)

but they always solve the crime

Re-reading that CSI analogy, i realised that it's not entirely correct

Creationists don't actually 'collect evidence'. Never heard of teams of creationists out in the desert excavating fossils, examining geological rock strata or looking at plant specimins under a microscope, trying to further their 'theory'.

To take that back to the analogy: the Creationist CSI team don't actually collect any evidence of their own, they paw through the findings of another CSI team, who actually did the evidence-gathering.


last edited by korbs at 16:50:29 06/Sep/05

Think about this, if some piece of evidence was found that without a doubt proved that evolution was wrong and so was creationism, do you think the creationists would change their mind, no they wouldnt. On the other hand, the people who believed in evolution would no doubt accept it as fact.

I think a more correct analogy would be: The CSI team pull out a 1500 year old book based on hearsy and 3rd party accounts, which is the printed equivilant of wikipedia, edited and changed throughout time. And then used that as their evidence.

That is exactly what Flying Spaghetti Monsterism is all about.

True I suppose, although I tend to think that FSM is mostly a point on the equal time in biology class.

Dont make me bring out the graph about the decline in pirats and the rise in global warming again..

I love that graph! We should do one for ninjas.

Not one answer to my question - how is evolution not a belief system? I believe God is eternal and created the universe and us. I'm happy to admit I don't have proof, I have faith that the bible is accurate. And the nice thing is that observations around us agree with what the bible says.

Rather than you having to read articles about my point of view (something you may decide to do while waiting for BF2's server list to render), I've found a great video seminar by Dr. Kent Hovind. He covers some of the topics I've mentioned in my various posts. Jump to 5:27 to skip the intro and get down to cases. (Video is 76.3MB and goes for 2 hours - just about enough time for a BF2 map to load, but shorter than the amount of time it takes for the BF2 audio to stop when you exit the game).

Now feel free to continue your belief in evolution. Most of you will regardless - but I still haven't heard one decent justification as to why evolution is not also a belief system.

You still in this thread? -_-

Im wondering what significance your argument there about science being a belief system actually is?

When it comes down to it every bit of information in the word needs to be believed in or denied to "be" data.

Citing that science is a belief structure does not change the 'Fact' that it requires factual evidence to prove a theory and not just belief in a concept itself without any supporting evidence whatsoever.

I'm not stating that science is a belief structure, far from it. I know what science is. I'm saying that the only kind of evolution that is scientific is that of micro evolution. All other evolution is not supportable by scientific method.

To say that everything came from nothing has not been proved.
To say that we evolved from animals has not been proved.

Sure, there are theories of these things - but I say that these theories are not conclusive by any means, and in many cases have large gaps or contradict one another. You look at my view point and say "yeah, whatever... fairy tales". But I'm looking at the stuff I was taught in "science" and your view point and am saying the same thing! Now I'm not a bible basher or some hard core deluded nut that loves poking fun at stuff. I can say with confidence that I have a very logical mind - I would not be able to sleep at night if I believed in something that did not have a logical basis. Take a step back and honestly evaluate evolution - remove your emotive response of scoffing at anything that contradicts what you've been taught. If you want to spot flaws in something you support, have a look at what the opposition is saying (that's why I posted the link to that video). It’s a very effective way of highlighting any flaws. Generally when you support something you overlook things that don’t agree with your position.

I cant wait till another few thousand years pass and scientific process can prove beyond a doubt that macro evolution works.
Im sure creationist studies will still be at step one going "How can we prove god exists?"
See thats the problem with that line of thinking, for us to measure macro evolution it will take time but at the moment all evidence points towards it being true.
No evidence points towards God being true and unless he says "Hi i came to earth and all i got was this silly cross" it never will be proven.

Saying Macro Evolution is a fairy tale on the level of which religion exists when strong supporting evidence is there as a guideline is like saying an apple is an orange.

*Edit for spelling again *sigh*

last edited by Xy at 09:23:35 07/Sep/05

so eu4ia, if like i said earlier, evolution was proved beyond doubt, would you believe it ?

Or would you continue to say "Hmm, that doesnt agree with the bible, so that cant be right"

And to say there is no evidence that evolution happened, have you ever looked at a big fat hairy man with his shirt off ? see any resemblence to anything ?

Evolution has not been proved without a doubt, but there is alot of evidence that goes along way to saying it probaly is true, where as creationism just says "well this old book here said it happened like this, so it must be true"

To say that evolution is a belief system is stupid.

See thats the problem with that line of thinking, for us to measure macro evolution it will take time but at the moment all evidence points towards it being true.

That's just false. Do some research. If macro evolution has been the driving factor throughout time we would see many examples around us in plain sight or in the fossil record. We don't.

And to say there is no evidence that evolution happened, have you ever looked at a big fat hairy man with his shirt off ? see any resemblence to anything ?

Yes, I see a resemblance to a man. Clearly you aren't seeing too well. Each and every single attempt to provide a missing link has been found to be incorrect or a plain fabrication. You are supporting a fantasy.

last edited by eu4ia at 12:46:52 07/Sep/05

Have you done a doorknock today eu4ia? And got unknowlingly served hash cookies by the pranksters of the residence? Being really high might explain your continued debating even when down and out. :) You should see god shortly in one of your hallucinations.

The whole fabrication of evidence to support evolution of organisms from that single celled organism to what we see today is an interesting issue.

Many people have pointed out that people who support evolution have no problem accepting new theories if new evidence is found.

So what makes a "scientist" fabricate whatever man from a single pig's tooth complete with full colour sketches and his likely diet.

Im not saying creationists are innocent of fabrication of evidence, I simply don't know. But to these people (that fabricated evidence), where we came from obviously meant more to them then just discovery of the world around us using scientific principals. Whether that reason is fame and fortune or something else, you have to stop bashing the creationists as being un scientific as obviously those researching what you support to be the way theings came to be have their many faults also.

/warning long rant.

The only major "counter" argument from the Cretionists/Genesis/ID beliver seems to be "well because there was no new information added to the DNA, therefore Macro Evolution cannot happen". But we're starting to find out that you really don't need new information needed to make a diverse differences in species but mutations of DNA

New Studies had just found that Chimp and humans are only 4% different in terms of DNA. Out of billion of base pairs, only 35 millions of them were different to turn us into chimps - and look we couldn't be any more different.

That's "different" not that Apes has more DNA sequence than us. The differences between humans and pigs are even less hence allowed the trans-species organ transplants. Mutation is the key, it's NOT neccesarilly that you have to add new "information" to have a new kind of species like most creationists would say.

Mutation can occured much more rapid than evolution, in fact some would say mutation is what the cause of evolution. After all we can still cannot cure more viruses *because* they "mutate" far too rapidly within a few generation for us to make drugs that kill them. If just one of those newly mutated strain survived, they will spread to new hosts and furthering (in exponetial) diversities. Of couse Darwin could’ve been wrong about what causes the “evolution” but he didn’t know much about DNA and genetics back then.

Also this is from the link:

Some 53 genes present in the human genome are missing or partially deleted from the chimp genome
...
For instance, one ape gene, caspase-12, produces an enzyme that appears to protect the animal from Alzheimer's disease but does not exist in modern humans.

So even this very small amount of differences, in the DNA level could cause a huge impact to cause a massive mutation to create almost completely different species - granted great Apes and humans are very closely related but you couldn't say we're only slightly different can you?.

Selective breeding is not a mutation, you can only change so much of the DNA with breeding that’s why they tend to revert to whatever original “stronger” blueprint you started with. That or it wasn’t enough of a mutation to make the change permanent, after all you still need to keep breeding to keep the genetic trait/line.

Now imagine that each one of these pairs can mutate do different things (not even counting the arragement of their combinations/or number of genes), well the number is massive, hence the diversity of species – and could goes to explain the explosions of diverse life.

So if we're not compatible down to the genetic level surely this couldn't happen but we’re here, so I don't see how you simply refuse to belive that this isn't some kind of basis for the theory that we're all started from the similar blue print. While you're accusing "evolutionists" of being blind to thier "faith" (LOL), the irony is you're doing the exact same thing.

A lot of the creationists counter arguments could all most be null and void if scientists are allowed to do very pervasive experiment with stem cells, and trans-species genetic research. I'm not avocating this is a good idea because we don't know what sort of whacked creatures we're going to get.

If we were able to fully sequenced every species on the planet and compare them we might be able to settle this once and for all. But then again, there are some people that still flatly refused to belive that man landed on the moon.

So going by that basis, I think this’ll be my last post because either side is ever going to agree.

The church has had tons of false beliefs which have since been corrected and then dropped from their teaching by science. The earth is flat, the sun and stars revolve around the earth... same deal here. I'm sure it took a few generations for people to deal with the fact the earth was round too.

you have to stop bashing the creationists as being un scientific

But creationism isn't based on science, hence it isn't scientific.

The only major "counter" argument from the Cretionists/Genesis/ID beliver seems to be "well because there was no new information added to the DNA, therefore Macro Evolution cannot happen". But we're starting to find out that you really don't need new information needed to make a diverse differences in species but mutations of DNA

Sure, you get massive changes with minor changes to DNA. But that doesn't explain how DNA came about in the first place. We're talking origins here. Evolutionists claim it all came out of rock being rained on. You still haven't explained how the extremely complex information got there first. There’s no proof.

While you're accusing "evolutionists" of being blind to thier "faith" (LOL), the irony is you're doing the exact same thing.

Yes, I am, but: the nice thing is that the data fits my model better than it fits the evolutionary model. The statements "everything evolved from nothing by chance" is at least as far fetched, if not more, as to say God created it all. DNA between us and numerous animals is similar? Well seeing as God created everything that makes sense. He wouldn't totally reinvent DNA every time - he'd make minor modifications at the point of creation.

I'd just like to say I'm thoroughly enjoying this discussion - it's making me question how and why I believe what I do. Sitting around with people who all agree with me isn't very thought provoking. Well done everybody! :)

just found this quote on a anti-evolution site

36 - MOLTEN EARTH—Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.

that was my favorite one. Just because they cant comprehend how hot and how damm big the earth is, they assume it must have cooled down by now if the earth was more than 6000 - 7000 years old.

The church has had tons of false beliefs which have since been corrected and then dropped from their teaching by science. The earth is flat, the sun and stars revolve around the earth... same deal here. I'm sure it took a few generations for people to deal with the fact the earth was round too.

huh? the idea that the earth is flat has nothing to do with a church, in fact the bible makes references to earth being a sphere or circle. there's a gazillion other things you could've pointed out which probably _are_ arguably false beliefs and probably originated with one religious faction or another, but what made you blunder those ones out?

actually it does, I'm saying the church has a history of clinging to false beliefs, ever heard of Galileo??

In 1616 Galileo wrote the Letter to the Grand Duchess which vigorously attacked the followers of Aristotle. In this work, which he addressed to the Grand Duchess Christina of Lorraine, he argued strongly for a non-literal interpretation of Holy Scripture when the literal interpretation would contradict facts about the physical world proved by mathematical science. In this Galileo stated quite clearly that for him the Copernican theory is not just a mathematical calculating tool, but is a physical reality:-

I hold that the Sun is located at the centre of the revolutions of the heavenly orbs and does not change place, and that the Earth rotates on itself and moves around it. Moreover ... I confirm this view not only by refuting Ptolemy's and Aristotle's arguments, but also by producing many for the other side, especially some pertaining to physical effects whose causes perhaps cannot be determined in any other way, and other astronomical discoveries; these discoveries clearly confute the Ptolemaic system, and they agree admirably with this other position and confirm it.

But that doesn't explain how DNA came about in the first place. We're talking origins here. Evolutionists claim it all came out of rock being rained on. You still haven't explained how the extremely complex information got there first. There’s no proof.

Not absolutley conclusive proof, but there is a hoard of evidence to support the theory. Evidence collected by real scientists too, not some gumby creationist analogy.

the nice thing is that the data fits my model better than it fits the evolutionary model.

No. It doesn't.

The statements "everything evolved from nothing by chance" is at least as far fetched, if not more, as to say God created it all.

It might be 'as far fetched' in those terms, however, life didn't evolve from 'nothing', there was complex chemistry involved. So much for you accusing evolutionists of not reading studies to support both sides eh?
If god created it all... did he just snap his fingers & the relevant matter appeared from nothing? Or did he use complex chemistry? Oh wait! Thats right he used the arse bone of an ox or something similar... that's believable!

36 - MOLTEN EARTH—Deep within the earth, the rocks are molten; but, if the earth were billions of years old, long ages ago our planet would have cooled far more than it now has.

Geezuz ;P~~~~~

[edit]

Jim, modern revisions of the bible make reference to 'the globe of the earth' but in older revisions it was 'the circle of the earth'. The church isn't really to blame for this model... because it was introduced by Aristotle in the 4th century. They ARE to blame for percecuting scientist like Copernicus & Galileo when they discovered & published that the earth was a sphere & rotated around the sun. Galileo, the father of modern science was threatened with torture (a good ol religious practice!) by the Pope if he didn't renounce his views, which he did. For almost 200years the church censored & repressed information that had been conclusively proven throught scientific method & still people reject the facts that are placed before them & believe in their dogma.


last edited by demon at 16:46:31 07/Sep/05

I don't see anything un scientific about the creationist method. They have a hypothesis and are trying to find scientific evidence that supports that hypothesis. No, their explaination of the origin of the universe may not be scientific but the method of collecting evidence to support that hypothesis can be.

Evolutionists are purely looking for scientific evidence that can explain a purely natural and therefore a somehow reproduceable process of the origin of the universe.

From that perspective the only way to settle the arguement once and for all is if scientists can from a vacuum and no outside interference produce life.

actually it does, I'm saying the church has a history of clinging to false beliefs, ever heard of Galileo??

nah, the way your post came across to me was that you were implying religion came up with the idea in the first place and didn't ditch it until something called science came along and made it, which doesn't seem to be the case, although some people have written fairly convincing articles on it - convincing until you try and objectively look at both sides.

ironic how churchies preach faith but spend so much time and effort tryin to prove they are correct.

just because churchies arnt happy with evolution they go and make up ID.

evolution is a good workin scientific model not a prefect model but none are.

demon: your beef against religion is that deep down you're ashamed of the immoral way you live your life and for you, religion strongly triggers your conscience which in turn (for any righteous man) begins a logical progression involving personal changes to behaviour and lifestyle that you don't want to make because you don't have the resolve or character for unselfishness acts and personal sacrifice for the good of your fellow humans.

jesus loves you even though you are not worthy - repent NOW

No you have it wrong.

Christians have ID because that's what the bible said happened. Their religious beliefs are tied up with that because you prove that creationism is wrong and their entire belief system is down the drain.

It seems some people don't even understand the way evolutionism gained a foothold. A vague description is that a while ago pretty much the church's beliefs were the rule. But Some guy was given a chance to put his views forward in a public forum i think. The church got cocky and didn't really worry about doing a proper rebuttal. It got people thinking and its moved on from there.

Now its probably the other way round where evolution is the more pupular theory. Again, Just because the masses say its so doesn't mean its corect. That applies to creationism and evolution

*Wonders if Jim's last post was serious or not*

Was funny either way.

the nice thing is that the data fits my model better than it fits the evolutionary model

Why do you continue to lie and spout this nonsense without sources?

The statements "everything evolved from nothing by chance" is at least as far fetched, if not more, as to say God created it all

This is a fairly basic misunderstanding, and alot of it has absolutely nothing to do with biology. The big bang is within the scope of physics, specifically cosmology. Its' veracity in no way affects evolution. No one except creationists trying to present a strawman of evolution claim that everything evolved from nothing. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life on earth, its' scope is limited to when the first heritable material appeared. The origin of life itself (while a fascinating subject worthy of intense scientific inquiry) is completely irrelevant to the veracity of the theory of evolution. Also natural selection is the exact opposite of chance, differential reproductive success should be a fairly simply concept to grasp.

DNA between us and numerous animals is similar? Well seeing as God created everything that makes sense. He wouldn't totally reinvent DNA every time - he'd make minor modifications at the point of creation.

This is an ad hoc explanation of no value what so ever. You could easily say that this was the logical way for god to create, regardless of the circumstances. What you need is a falsifiable hypothesis, just so stories simply won't cut it. How can you possible claim the data fits your model better when your model does nothing but pass the buck to omnipotence?

What is your explanation for the ludicrous redundancy and suboptimal design in the natural world?
Including but not limited to;

* The recurrent laryngeal nerve
* The Panda's thumb
* The Vertebrate eye (as compared to that of the cephalopods - since the chances you'll invesitage further are slim to nil, I'll just tell you. Their nerve cells are behind their photoreceptors. It's so simple yet the pinnacle of creation does not have it.)
* Snake and Whale legs
* The plantaris muscle - Fully functional in monkeys, yet present in humans; atrophied and redundant. Why?
*
Flounder mouth and eyes
etc

Of course you can and probably will say that it was God's will to litter the natural world with engineering abominations.


last edited by Rommel at 18:03:37 07/Sep/05

last edited by Rommel at 18:04:50 07/Sep/05

It would be more fun to talk about vestigal organs in humans since creationists freak out when told we evolved from primates :P

Jim: nah, my beef with religion is that it's wrong... & dumb. :D

eu4ia, we can all save ourselves the hassles and have a read here:

http://wiki.cotch.net/index.php/List_of_creationist_arguments

and opec, your beef with religion is that it doesn't tolerate your genetic inferiorities - how could god have created such an atrocity? the only answer can be that you and your kind are satanic abominations

i dont need no religion to tell me whats right and what to follow... i do what i want

yes and when i fly kick you off the edge into the brisbane river dont question it cause i can do what i want.

i dont need no religion to tell me whats right and what to follow... i do what i want

nah ya don't
you try hard to do things that you think will make people consider you cool, but as much as you try, you fail

haha Jim.

okay jim, back to the religion you belong mindlessly follow, and have fun sunday morning

"From that perspective the only way to settle the arguement once and for all is if scientists can from a vacuum and no outside interference produce life.

Thats the silliest argument ive seen in this thread yet.

For 1: I wasn't aware life evolved in a vacuum ... all this air and pressure around us must now be a vacuum? za?

2: How can we do anything if we cant interfere with it from outside? Are you asking us to create matter out of nothingness? As rommel has stated that has little to do with the act of creating life itself.

This argument baffles me a hell of alot more than "God created everything" yet without an ounce of supportable evidence.

Also Jim is teh funneh!

got bean: my religion is Riding Yo Mommas Ass Like A Spaceship

and sunday is right around the corner

she doesnt lower her standards that low, kid.

"From that perspective the only way to settle the arguement once and for all is if scientists can from a vacuum and no outside interference produce life.

This experiment has half way been done. A very important experiment in the area now known as exobiology took some of the gasses and conditions (lightning) thought to have been on the very primordial earth (and which we have observed on other planets) and allowed it to run. The result organic compound INCLUDING amino acids. The very molecules which are the information code for DNA. Thats very strong evidence that without interference chemistry can produce life.

This experiment has half way been done. A very important experiment in the area now known as exobiology took some of the gasses and conditions (lightning) thought to have been on the very primordial earth (and which we have observed on other planets) and allowed it to run. The result organic compound INCLUDING amino acids. The very molecules which are the information code for DNA. Thats very strong evidence that without interference chemistry can produce life.

Link to experiment or lying (I just want to read it)

got bean: she spat you out didn't she?

Link to experiment or lying (I just want to read it)

Im not sure where you could read about it online. Its called the miller-urey model and the area you are looking at is abiotic synthesis of organic compounds. I couldnt be bothered to google it for you :)

Essentially, they created an atmosphere hypothesised to be similar to that of a planet with heavy volcanic activity (gasses like methane and ammonia as well as other common ones like oxygen, hydrogen etc) then synthesised lightning by zapping the s***. (this was all done in a totally enclosed system of glassage) and the compounds precipitated out of the atmosphere through condensation (so this is just cooling atmosphere IRL) This process was undertaken over the length of a week so its not neccesarily spontaneous either.

Scientists have also demonstrated that its possible for monomers (which is what is created in the miller-urey model) to form polymers (such as nucleic acids) WITHOUT the enzymes normally required for production in organisms. (This was achieved by dripping them onto very hot sand or clay or stone which is again, a hypothesised situation likely to have occured on ancient earth.)

The whole area is very interesting so its worth looking into.

last edited by Qmass at 22:04:41 07/Sep/05

I don't consider my statement of vacuum to life stupid at all. Because that is the process that is required to support our existence without devine intervention.

The creation of life from "dead" substances is part of that (I have heard of that experiment but from memory when i read up on it i wasn't really too impressed at what they had achieved compared to their claims). But Mr XY you have to look at the whole process - it has been mentioned before, where did the matter come from that allowed the entire universe to come from.

Divine intervention is the easy answer, but without that, to actually prove the entire process you have to be able to reproduce the events-nothingness-> a solar system with no life; a solar system with no life - > life.

The whole evolution part is the basic, one celled life forms -> complex life proof.

See creationism is a faith based belief and has no possibility of ever being proven, but, if a non god based universe is correct, then we as humans could (theoretically) create another entire universe from nothing, in my opinion anyway.

Essentially, they created an atmosphere hypothesised to be similar to that of a planet with heavy volcanic activity (gasses like methane and ammonia as well as other common ones like oxygen, hydrogen etc) then synthesised lightning by zapping the s***. (this was all done in a totally enclosed system of glassage) and the compounds precipitated out of the atmosphere through condensation (so this is just cooling atmosphere IRL) This process was undertaken over the length of a week so its not neccesarily spontaneous either.

Incorrect. Have a read here. I'll quote a part of it:

The exclusive ‘left-handedness’ required for life (see The origin of life—the left-handed problem) was destroyed in the process. They excuse that by pointing out that some cell wall peptides have right-handed amino acids. But this misses the point—enzymes that break down cell walls are designed for exclusively left-handed amino acids, so an occasional right-handed amino acid is the perfect defence in a left-handed world.

Huber and Wächterhäuser also reported that these pairs were broken down rapidly under the same conditions! The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin of life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’4 as Wächterhäuser advocates. Actually, over the long periods of time postulated by evolution, polymers are unstable in water in general, not just at high temperatures. A recent article in New Scientist also described the instability of polymers in water as a ‘headache’ for researchers working on evolutionary ideas on the origin of life. It also showed its materialistic bias by saying this was not ‘good news’.5 But the real bad news is that faith in evolution (everything made itself) overrides objective science.

-End.

Next response to:

This is a fairly basic misunderstanding, and alot of it has absolutely nothing to do with biology. The big bang is within the scope of physics, specifically cosmology. Its' veracity in no way affects evolution. No one except creationists trying to present a strawman of evolution claim that everything evolved from nothing. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life on earth, its' scope is limited to when the first heritable material appeared. The origin of life itself (while a fascinating subject worthy of intense scientific inquiry) is completely irrelevant to the veracity of the theory of evolution. Also natural selection is the exact opposite of chance, differential reproductive success should be a fairly simply concept to grasp.

I quote http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/:

Darwin's Theory of Evolution - The Premise

Darwin's Theory of Evolution is the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor: the birds and the bananas, the fishes and the flowers -- all related. Darwin's general theory presumes the development of life from non-life and stresses a purely naturalistic (undirected) "descent with modification". That is, complex creatures evolve from more simplistic ancestors naturally over time. In a nutshell, as random genetic mutations occur within an organism's genetic code, the beneficial mutations are preserved because they aid survival -- a process known as "natural selection." These beneficial mutations are passed on to the next generation. Over time, beneficial mutations accumulate and the result is an entirely different organism (not just a variation of the original, but an entirely different creature).

Note: "life from non-life". Unproven fantasy... your statement of it only being one of biology and not cosmology begs the question: if the world was not created by God, how did it come to be so that your biological processes could start? To say that evolution is purely one of biology is silly - it has to explain origins. Did the world magically poof into existence all nice and empty so your natural processs could occur? And this is science?

BTW, I don't think I've made myself clear - I don't support ID theory being taught in science. Firstly, it distances itself from God. So if there is an intelligent designer but its not God, then who? It's a cop out. Secondly, I maintain that origins of the world and us can never be true science - they are belief systems. Science classes should be limited to subjects that are: observable and testable. Let creationism and evolutionism be taught side by side in philosophy or religious classes.

last edited by eu4ia at 23:20:46 07/Sep/05

Interesting points Danthepirate and eu4ia although any site that has "Upholding the Bible from the very first verse" as it's motto seems somewhat bias in my books considering just how factual the Bible is.

As to the answer to life the universe and everything?
It's still under study and no one, i repeat plainly for you all "NO ONE" knows how it began.
No, not even people who believe in creationist theories know how the universe came about, simply copping it out to "Gooorrrd dun did it huk huk" isn't science goddamn it >.That stuff belongs in theological and philisophical studies, not a science class.

It may take us tens or hundreds of thousands of years if ever to scientifically prove and recreate that one but the scientific community will continue to test and to try.

Now back onto a less farcical debate with less cop outtyness.
I see your link eu4ia and raise you http://www.bioteach.ubc.ca/Biodiversity/origin/
In the conclusion it has ...
"A number of unanswered questions surrounding the properties that characterize and could have spawned life require further research."
Notice the last three words ... "require further research".

You can bet this study will go on and will be solved but strong supporting evidence already points in this direction.
Should it prove false and nothing ever come of the study the scientists will move on to other theories ... im sure they wont just say "The giant Flying Spaghetti Monster made it all, but you cant see him".

-End.

I dont care what random source you have quoted there, millers work is still recognised in every first year biol text from high school to uni. I never said that it formed amino acids. I said that it formed some organic compounds and further experimentation was required to form polymers. The article you linked discusses formation of organisms which has nothing to do with this experiment. The whole point of millers work was to prove that it was possible for basic organic compounds to be formed in the atmosphere hypothesised to have existed. This is sort of 'biology history' I dont know waht the current level of genesis in this area is but you cant say they didnt do it becuase they did.

Again, the article you linked is not directly related to what I was saying the miller-urey model demonstrates. Reading that article now its totally off the f***ing mark.

Millers work created basic organic compounds. The whole point was that they were able to create polymers (for how long I do not know but they did make them, I understand the comment by miller that they are unstable, however, that does not detract from the fact that they WERE MADE) WITHOUT enzymes and that article uses the way enzymes work to disprove some work by a german dude?

Its an ID website so its obviously biased anyway.

last edited by Qmass at 00:57:27 08/Sep/05

I opened this reply to page so long ago I can't even remember what thread it was for, just that it had Jim in it and I was supposed to bring it to him somehow.

Jim, you're wrong and you know it. Don't tell me what to know that you know. I know what I know that you know and you know that too. You keep going on and on with all your arguments even though they've been comprehensively refuted. This is almost as embarrasing as the time you decided the number 0 didn't exist and the whole thing was an Semitic conspiracy that Pauline Hason was going to uncover.

If this line ------------------- represents anything at all no one cares because you're stinking this thread up too much with your crazy unsubstantiated madcappery.

What do the religious get out of extensive debating when they have no case?

plok: come by the office one day you big snob

To say that evolution is purely one of biology is silly - it has to explain origins. Did the world magically poof into existence all nice and empty so your natural processs could occur? And this is science?

It has to explain nothing but the origin of the diversity of life on earth. If aliens, god or the IPU started life on earth it doesn't change the fact that allele frequencies change over time and that this explained by natural selection. You seem very confused about how Science works, but I'll state it again for clarity; Abiogenesis is a seperate theory to the theory of evolution, in no way is the accuracy of one dependant on the other. It also is nothing like the caricature you're trying to present.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/views.gif

Go back a few pages and read the journal articles I referenced regarding abiogenesis if you're actually interested in learning instead of stonewalling.

BTW, I don't think I've made myself clear - I don't support ID theory being taught in science. Firstly, it distances itself from God.

This is truly impressive, I've finally found a creationist who doesn't know the whole point of ID is to veil creationism in scientific jargon. What do you think these christian fundementalists gunning for ID are really talking about when they say "designer"?

So if there is an intelligent designer but its not God, then who?

Aliens according to the Raelians

It's a cop out.

It certainly is, just like "God did it". A blanket explanation that can never be falsified and predicts nothing.

Secondly, I maintain that origins of the world and us can never be true science - they are belief systems. Science classes should be limited to subjects that are: observable and testable. Let creationism and evolutionism be taught side by side in philosophy or religious classes.

If you want to delve into solipsism that is all well and good. However the more pragmatic among us will stick to reasonable standards of evidence. The theory of evolution meets these standards, creationism and ID do not it is as simple as that. You can try to neutralize this all you want by attempting to drag Science down to their level with this "everything is a belief system" garbage as though you can actually equate Science with Religion, but in the end it will amount to nothing. Scientists will continue to use the theory of evolution because it works, creationism will remain anachronistic and totally wrong.

last edited by Rommel at 09:33:51 08/Sep/05

last edited by Rommel at 09:35:09 08/Sep/05

Millers work created basic organic compounds. The whole point was that they were able to create polymers (for how long I do not know but they did make them, I understand the comment by miller that they are unstable, however, that does not detract from the fact that they WERE MADE)

The instability is a very important part of the experiment. It means their method failed. Ignoring the part that "ahah, we've created random life by designing an experiment" means intelligent design - if we are to believe this theory, life clearly has survived to today. Therefore if the so called "life" produced only lasts a short time then it can't be an accurate example of how it all started.

Xy: interesting page that. First thing that jumped out at me on that page was this:

The first signs of life evidenced by the fossil record came into being approximately 3.5 billion years ago

This raises a topic that I don't think we've touched on yet. That of the conclusions formed by studying fossils. My position is that the earth is 6000 years old. I think the geologic column is the result of fanciful imaginings.

The whole idea of millions of years came from James Hutton in the 1700s. From that Charles Lyell wrote "Principles of Geology" where he invented the geologic column, based on the ideas of a few others. He invented layers for rock and gave each one an index fossil. He gave an age to each of the layers - this was before time of any of the dating methods. He made it up based on the conclusion that each layer is a different age.

Creationist's Interpretation	Fact	Evolutionist's Interpretation
It formed quickly by lots of water and little time	Grand Canyon exists	It formed slowly by a little water and lots of time
The layers are from the flood of Noah	The earth has layers of sedimentary rock	The layers form slowly over millions of years

What annoys me is, looking at the above table, we were only taught the evolutionist view - and as fact. It's not fact, it's interpretation. The geologic column is the bible for the evolutionist. It can be found only one place - in a book. The geologic column does not exist. There are 26 place on earth where the fossils are found in the order an evolutionist wants them to be, but it doesn't prove the geologic column exists. Some places the fossils are in the wrong order. If it was in one place it'd be 160 kilometres thick! Around the world, why are there no signs of erosion between layers of rock? If it takes a million years to form a new layer, why isn't the layer eroded by rain? Fill a jar with dirt and water and shake it. You'll get layers formed in seconds - it's called hydrologic sorting.

Then, when we're told are the age of the layers of rocks are determined by their index fossils. Then we're told the age of fossils is determined by what layer of rock they come from. Huh? Sure. Right. Nice circular reasoning. Everything about geology is scientific, except the part about the layers being different ages.

The intelligent layman has long suspected circular reasoning in the use of rocks to date fossils and fossils to date rocks. The geologist has never bothered to think of a good reply, feeling the explanations are not worth the trouble as long as the work brings results. - J.E. O'Rourke, American Journal of Science

and

Apart from very 'modern' examples, which are really archaeology, I can think of no cases of radioactive decay being used to date fossils.- Ager, Derek V., "Fossil Frustrations", New Scientist

If they tell you they date fossils by one of the dating methods, they're wrong. That's not how it's done. Fossils are dated by which strata they come from. Strata are dated by which fossils they contain. Circular reasoning.

Radiometric dating would not have been feasible if the geologic column had not been erected first

The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately.- O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science.

Huh!? And then often the response to the charge of circular reasoning is this:

The charge of circular reasoning in stratigraphy can be handled in several ways. It can be ignored, as not the proper concern of the public. [You have no right to questions us] It can be denied, by calling down the Law of Evolution. It can be admitted, as a common practice... Or it can be avoided, by pragmatic reasoning.- O'Rourke, "Pragmatism versus Materialism in Stratigraphy", American Journal of Science.

Doesn't change the fact that it's circular reasoning. How do you tell the difference between 100 million year old Jurassic limestone and 600 million year old Cambrian limestone? It's all limestone. The reply is "we'll tell by the index fossils". Wonderful.

Last point: there are thousands of examples of petrified (fossilised) trees and a number of dinosaurs where the single fossil is found passing through multiple layers - layers that we're told formed over millions of years. The facts that contradict the theory are many, so why is the theory clung to with such desperation? It's just a theory. In science when the facts contradict a theory, you throw the theory away. Happens all the time.

Its an ID website so its obviously biased anyway

So what? An evolutionist site is obviously biased as well - doesn't mean I don't read them. Look at the statements made and think logically about them.

Right, I'm done. Talk about a marathon post.

*edit*
Thanks Rommel, I'll have a closer look at Abiogenesis. Please don't think I'm not interested in this stuff. I enjoy reading about science.

last edited by eu4ia at 11:57:44 08/Sep/05

My position is that the earth is 6000 years old. I think the geologic column is the result of fanciful imaginings.

oh dear.... I'm sorry up to this point I'm willing to be open minded (and have been and read your links) but, 6,000 years ? If you'd said a million or 10 I might even consider this hypothesis but sorry this's just too far fetched even for me to strech......

I blame my inferior genetic make up and my satanic makers.

last edited by Opec at 12:09:50 08/Sep/05

Note: "life from non-life". Unproven fantasy... your statement of it only being one of biology and not cosmology begs the question: if the world was not created by God, how did it come to be so that your biological processes could start? To say that evolution is purely one of biology is silly - it has to explain origins. Did the world magically poof into existence all nice and empty so your natural processs could occur? And this is science?

Take the example of the moon Titan which orbits Saturn. It is too far from the Sun for there to be life on it, so cold that water does not subliminate, an atmosphere composed mostly of nitrogen & methane (much as is theorised early Earth would have had) & it orbit's inside the lethal radiation of Saturn's electromagnetisphere. With these conditions life could not survive & yet every time Titan orbits outside the elctromagnetisphere of Saturn the upper atmosphere is bombarded by the solar wind causing extremely complex chemistry to take place forming complex organic hydrocarbons. If this can happen in a region so alien to life, then surely it is feasable, in the near perfect conditions on Earth that it happened & went further to create lifes building blocks (obviously it is still a long way from creating actual life).

My position is that the earth is 6000 years old. I think the geologic column is the result of fanciful imaginings.

You are just plain wrong! There is SO much evidence that the Earth is around 4.5-4.6 billion years old. Not just stratafied geology. Carbon dating, coral fossils, techtonic plate movement & the formation of mountains, ocean floor deposits & fossil fuels, ice sample deposits from the polar caps, the list is nearly endless but creationist just pick on a single thing like stratafied geology. Stupid, ignorant & wrong.
How do you explain the age of the moon? The rocks returned from the Moon are carbon dated to over 3billion years! How do you explain comets & asteroids with ancient surfaces?

If they tell you they date fossils by one of the dating methods, they're wrong.

Yeh, those crazy EXPERTS are wrong... some bloke on the qgl forum is probably more correct than an expert in his field doing actual observable experiments. @_@

Fill a jar with dirt and water and shake it. You'll get layers formed in seconds - it's called hydrologic sorting.

A typical creationist analogy... which is TOTALLY inapplicable. So god picks the world up & gives it a good shake after every rainstorm?

Somehow i don't think entire planets with fully functioning and inconcievably complex biospheres of life, atmosphere and landscape systems form in only a 'mere' 6000 years. Especially to mega advanced degrees. like us.

Could there be any more absurd of an idea than that? lol. What next, the moon really *is* made of green cheese under the surface? and god made that too. With his heavenly dairy cows and tools.

oh dear...

You are just plain wrong! There is SO much evidence that the Earth is around 4.5-4.6 billion years old. Not just stratafied geology. Carbon dating, coral fossils, techtonic plate movement & the formation of mountains, ocean floor deposits & fossil fuels, ice sample deposits from the polar caps, the list is nearly endless but creationist just pick on a single thing like stratafied geology. Stupid, ignorant & wrong.
How do you explain the age of the moon? The rocks returned from the Moon are carbon dated to over 3billion years! How do you explain comets & asteroids with ancient surfaces?

I'll pick this one up so eu4ia has no excuse for not answering the overall point. Carbon dating techniques have a limit of around 50,000 years, and particularly young samples are problematic too (also remains of organisms whose carbon14 source isn't atmospheric). It's abit like wanting to measure kilometres and nanometers with the same device. The dating techniques used for the range you're talking about are Uranium-lead, Potassium-argon, Rubidium-strontium. Some people like to claim that decay rates have changed over time allowing for a seemingly old earth. To anyone with even a cursory knowledge of Nuclear Physics this is laughable.

last edited by Rommel at 13:58:17 08/Sep/05

I think the main problem is this, evolution thoery was created from the minds of many scientist, who started with a clean slate and came up with an idea of what they think happened and over time it has changed, we new information comes to light and new ideas thought up.

Cretionism works the other way, read this page http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4277news4-14-2000.asp

heres an extract

"The reason many Christians have been unable to give answers about dinosaurs is because they have tried to “fit” them into the Bible—instead of using the Bible and its true account of history to explain them."

seems a pretty biased way to explain things.

also

"that all the land animal kinds (including dinosaurs) were on the Ark"

thats a f***en big ark, but I guess if god made it, it would be big, he can do anything ? Did god make the ark or did noah?, Im realy dont know maybe eu4ia can tell us, if he did, it would have taken him a while. Would have been hard the keep the rex apart from all the tasty goats and stuff, but i guess if its in the bible it must have happened right ?

lol. ark with dinosaurs. now there's a funny addition to the story.

Of course dinosaurs aren't in the bible, or were on the ark, because people weren't around when dinosaurs were.

I was under the impression that intelligent design was put out there because the mathematical and scientific evidence against evolution and the big bang theory was so high that another theory had to be created that acknowledged the evidence of intelligence in our design.

All intelligent design does is acknowledge that there is a higher power at work in our overall design. No where in it's theory does it mention or give credit to GOD as that higher power. In my opinion it's there to take the focus away from GOD as the creator and just attribute it to whatever people want to term a higher power.

If you can't beat the truth then you have to find something which people will find more acceptable and in this day and age i believe it's intelligent design which is winning, it allows you to believe you are here for a reason without having to acknowledge that GOD actually exists.

That's a good point and all, if it were true. But I.D is proposed by almost only the religious sector because it's an attempt to get thier stuff accepted again but in a much more cleverly marketed way. Without all the religious ties, then that post of yours would make a good point.

All the ID theory people would like you to believe that they have nothing to do with god, yeah right, except when you look at who it pushing it, it all tracks back to the religious people.

With ID theory in place, all the churchies can then go, "look they teach at school that our world was possible created by an inteligent designer, oh look, that fits in with god doesnt it, geez, god must be the inteligent designer they are talking about"

ID has nothing to do with religion, YEAH RIGHT !!!

I'll pick this one up so eu4ia has no excuse for not answering the overall point

Thanks Rommel, you beat me to it. :)

...Saturn the upper atmosphere is bombarded by the solar wind causing extremely complex chemistry to take place forming complex organic hydrocarbons

organic hydrocarbons isn't life. That proves nothing.

Carbon dating, coral fossils, techtonic plate movement & the formation of mountains, ocean floor deposits & fossil fuels, ice sample deposits from the polar caps, the list is nearly endless but creationist just pick on a single thing like stratafied geology. Stupid, ignorant & wrong

No, creationists don't just pick a single thing like stratafied geology. There are creationist theories on those things:

Carbon dating;
techtonic plate movement;
fossil fuels;
ice sample deposits from the polar caps. <-- in addition to this, World War 2 planes have been recovered from under the ice in Greenland. In a matter of decades they had been covered by many metres of ice. When they excavated them, they had to go through hundreds of "ice rings" to get them. A difference in the colour of ice (ice bands or rings) indicates hot and cold variations (which can occur many times in one day) rather than seasonal cycles.

There are a lot of active scientists in the world who support the creationist view. To say that you can't be a scientist if you're a creationist is silly.

some bloke on the qgl forum is probably more correct than an expert in his field doing actual observable experiments

All I've been doing is quoting scientists who have put forward creationist theories. There is a lot of supporting data for these theories.

thats a f***en big ark, but I guess if god made it, it would be big, he can do anything ? Did god make the ark or did noah?, Im realy dont know maybe eu4ia can tell us, if he did, it would have taken him a while. Would have been hard the keep the rex apart from all the tasty goats and stuff, but i guess if its in the bible it must have happened right ?

The size of the ark is estimated to be about two thirds the size of the titanic. Noah was instructed to take two of each kind (not species) of air-breathing animal (not insects). And yes, dinosaurs were on the ark. They meet the criteria. But think about this, if you want to repopulate the earth, you'd want young animals that will live longer and produce more offspring. So why take a full grown elephant onboard when you can take two babies? Micro-evolution (or variations within a kind) is scientific fact. As an example, horses, donkeys, zebras are of one kind. If you can cross-breed them, they're of a kind. So the numbers involved are a lot less than most people think.

oh dear.... I'm sorry up to this point I'm willing to be open minded (and have been and read your links) but, 6,000 years ? If you'd said a million or 10 I might even consider this hypothesis but sorry this's just too far fetched even for me to strech......

I blame my inferior genetic make up and my satanic makers.

Lol Opec! Yes, to us who have been taught since we were young that the earth is billions of years old, 6000 years does sound silly. But if you're willing to listen to a million years reduced from 4.6 billion years, you may as well be willing to listen about 6000 years. The stuff I posted about the geologic column is not made up. It's documented. And as I've said there are lot of creationist theories out there that do make sense if you take the time to read them.

Thanks Rommel, you beat me to it. :)

I don't see why, radiometric dating using the proper isotopes make a youth earth an untenable position.

Its just funny that in all the pcitures of the ark I have seen, dinosaurs were never there, maybe these have been added later, when creationists could not explain dinosaurs "oh yeah, they were on the ark, didnt we say that? hmm maybe we forgot to mention it, yeah there was dinosaurs"

Do you agree that creationist start with the bible and then try to explain all the evidence in context to it, where as the scientist get the evidence and then come up with the answers.

I don't see why, radiometric dating using the proper isotopes make a youth earth an untenable position.

Nope. Radiometric dating still has a major problem. It relies on assumptions of the original composition of elements in the rock when it was formed. It's like touching coffee in a mug that's a degree above room temperature and declaring that the coffee was 50 degrees above room temperature when it was put in the mug. You can't know that. You don't know how long the coffee's been there, and you don't know what temperature it was originally. All you know for sure is what temperature it is now. Have a look at this article: The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating.

last edited by eu4ia at 16:01:50 08/Sep/05

eu4ia, one of the many available cross checks. The assumptions can be fairly easily supported by evidence from the geological setting and chemistry of the specimen that allow you to test the validity of the assumptions required.

From your link

"The only foolproof method for determining the age of something is based on eyewitness reports and a written record. We have both in the Bible. And that is why creationists use the historical evidence in the Bible to constrain their interpretations of the geological evidence."

Why are they assuming the bible is true?, everything on that site refers back to the bible, which is why I said before, they have the answers in the bible, and just shape the evidence to make it true.

If the Earth is only 6000 years old, when were the dinosaurs around in this timeline? I mean, we've got the last 2000 years relatively well documented. The Sumerians were forming city-states in like, 3000BC. That's about 5,000 years. I'm pretty sure they weren't fighting dinosaurs, either. So that only leaves 1,000 years for dinosaurs to exist, right?

http://img383.imageshack.us/img383/7956/pbf025bcdinosaurmeteors9to.jpg

Apperently dinosaurs were around when naoh and the flood were happening, Im not sure when that was, eu4ia, care to give us a date as to when the flood happened ?

Noah's ark has been pretty well torn to shreds.

I cannot believe that people in this day and age still take the story literally.

My position is that the earth is 6000 years old.

You're retarded right?

Noah must have been a fukn legend to round up all those dinosaurs! Especially as he was supposed to be born, raised & lived in the middle east & yet there are species of animals & dinos that are only found in other continents! That ark must have really powered using some form of god-propulsion system to collect these millions of species from all the continents of the Earth! Not to mention the species that existed when the continents were bridged & would have been deep underwater & rock at the time of Noah.

bah, I'm sick of reading these wack creationist sites with thier "whatever_thing_we_disagree_with is a pseudo science fantasy" & yet they will happily use the hard work of other, real, scientists to twist some facts or make some stupid analogy. Lets see a creationist send a probe to Saturn using thier bulls*** dogma, or make any sort of scientific achievement! Of course they never will because all they do is hack on the work of real scientists with thier pathetic sophistries.

Why are they assuming the bible is true?, everything on that site refers back to the bible, which is why I said before, they have the answers in the bible, and just shape the evidence to make it true.

The Bible is the most accurate history book we have. Archaeologists use it to figure out where to dig for various lost cities and places. And when extremely old copies of it are found and compared to today's version its accuracy has been validated. It hasn't changed much over time. Seems much of evolution's evidence has been carefully selected to shape to the evolutionists pre-conceived expectations.

If the Earth is only 6000 years old, when were the dinosaurs around in this timeline? I mean, we've got the last 2000 years relatively well documented. The Sumerians were forming city-states in like, 3000BC. That's about 5,000 years. I'm pretty sure they weren't fighting dinosaurs, either. So that only leaves 1,000 years for dinosaurs to exist, right?

Well it's quite interesting that many cultures all over the world have stories and historical accounts of dragons. Yep, there you go trog... this thread has dragons! :) Big lizards. Don't laugh - we equate dragons to fantasy - but old stories couldn't have used the word dinosaur as it wasn't invented until the 1800s or so. There are numerous stories of "monsters" (Loch Ness monster, etc) and dragons from around the world. It's not impossible that these accounts are based on humans interacting with dinosaurs. There have been a number of examples where human presence has been found in the same rock strata as dinosaur fossils. Naturally, evolutionists aren't too keen for this to be widely noticed. Creationists say dinosaurs were with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden. And a couple happened to end up on the ark. Another interesting thing: many cultures around the world have stories and myths of being saved from a flood by one family and everyone being descended from that family. The American Indians, the Hawaiians, the Aborigines - all have such stories.

Noah must have been a fukn legend to round up all those dinosaurs! Especially as he was supposed to be born, raised & lived in the middle east & yet there are species of animals & dinos that are only found in other continents! That ark must have really powered using some form of god-propulsion system to collect these millions of species from all the continents of the Earth! Not to mention the species that existed when the continents were bridged & would have been deep underwater & rock at the time of Noah

The world was a very different place back then. And who says Noah went out and got the animals? They came to him. Animals have an instinct for knowing when catastrophic events are about to occur. How about this idea? That instinct is left over from the days of Noah when God installed an instinct within two of each of the animals selected to go on the ark to get to Noah at the right time. The instinct in animals today has been passed down since then. It’s just an idea, but not an impossible one.

Apperently dinosaurs were around when naoh and the flood were happening, Im not sure when that was, eu4ia, care to give us a date as to when the flood happened ?

The timeline in the Bible is this (times approximations): 6000 years ago: creation event and the fall of man (before the world was cursed there was no death - plants aren't alive in the same sense that animals and we are). 4000 years ago: the global flood (all geological structures formed at this time, including massive amounts of vegetation laid down which provides us with fossil fuels). 2000 years ago: Jesus came and saved us from our sin.

Essentially this is why Creationism and Evolutionism are opposite and conflicting theories. Creation is: Through man death entered the world. Evolution is: Through death (macro evolution and selection) man entered the world. I see Christianity as a religion of life. Evolution is a religion of death.

eu4ia, one of the many available cross checks. The assumptions can be fairly easily supported by evidence from the geological setting and chemistry of the specimen that allow you to test the validity of the assumptions required.

Thanks for that link Rommel, I'll have a read - it looks interesting.

Let me post a link to some creationism videos - you don't have to agree with them. Even watch them so you can poke fun at how "silly" the creationist viewpoint is. But maybe you'll see that some of it does make sense. Rather than reading sites poking holes at creationist thinking, have a listen to what we're trying to say and the logic being used. We don't say "ooh God did it therefore we don't want to study anymore". Scientists embracing the creationist viewpoint do exists in large numbers. Someone commented how creationists should build a probe and send it out into space? Guess what - there are a number of creationist scientists working for Nasa right now. You're too late with your suggestion. :)

Video 1: The Age of the Earth (76.3MB)
Video 2: The Garden of Eden (75.7MB)
Video 3: Dinosaurs and the Bible (67.1MB)
Video 4: Lies in the Textbooks (29.8MB - video is chopped off for some reason)

If you watch them you'll note I've quoted extensively from these videos.

last edited by eu4ia at 18:01:35 08/Sep/05

Korbs, that was a very interesting read.

OK im no biology genius (Thats for damn sure) but if only 2 of every animal type was taken on the ark im seeing a small problem.

If a species has 2 animals left and they breed doesn't that mean their direct offspring will have to mate? and then their offspring?
This doesn't lead to very much genetic diversity... how long before a disease wipes them all out?
Doesn't inbreeding weaken a species so much that they become sickly in only a couple generations?

"plants aren't alive in the same sense that animals and we are"

*Shakes head* You mean they werent sentient? or that they aren't alive?
Im pretty sure plant "LIFE" is alive.

You should be aware that there are two groups of creationists. Those that beleive the earth is 6000 years old and those that beleive that the earth is as old as science tell us it is. The ancient creationists beleive in the big bang and other such theories accepted in science and show how they point to ID.
e.g. http://www.reasons.org/resources/fff/2000issue03/index.shtml#big_bang_the_bible_taught_it_first

Also regarding the Noah's flood here is a creationists view that agrees with the view that the flood could not have been global.

http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/flood.shtml

eu4ia, either you are an easily lead simpleton or you ams the best troll artist in the land!

Let me post a link to some creationism videos - you don't have to agree with them. Even watch them so you can poke fun at how "silly" the creationist viewpoint is.

I'm quite familiar with Kent Hovinds material and his fradulant credentials. I've also had the pleasure of listening to him being spit-roasted on his own show a few times. It's very interesting to note that Hovind refuses to engage in written debates where claims can be verified, sources checked, shotgun questions broken down and answered fully etc. His tactics rely on appealing to the masses with a rapid fire speaking style and the desire of everyone to have their worldview validated. He is very good at what he does, he makes people feel they're the intellectual superiors of the scientific community. Unfortunately all those people who buy his merchandise and goto his seminars (frequently held in local churches oddly enough) have been conned. I doubt they would care though, they already believed they just wanted a reason (however fallacious). Hovind is extremely light on Science and his arguments have been disected at length on many sites. I'm not going to post anymore links, suffice to say that if anyone can't find these refutations they're not looking very hard at all.

But maybe you'll see that some of it does make sense. Rather than reading sites poking holes at creationist thinking, have a listen to what we're trying to say and the logic being used. We don't say "ooh God did it therefore we don't want to study anymore".

You continue to accuse me of being close-minded to creationist sources and urge me consider their logic. I find this quizzical to say the least, I've extensively read creationist material for years and I've seen that it is scientifically empty. It wasn't even a case of examining pro and con and "picking a side". Knowing what I do about Science (Biology in particular) it would be the most heinous intellectual dishonesty to even pretend Creationism is a scientifically defensible position. Which isn't at all suprising, their aims are political and monetary. It's hard to decide which is more important to them. While they love trying to weasel their way into schools, fleecing devoted christians must provide a great deal of sadistic pleasure as well.

If I start seeing Creationism research papers in Nature, Science, PNAS or Cell. I might reconsider. But until they start producing data and submitting to peer review, I'm not interested in their misunderstandings, lies and appeals to the masses.

Scientists embracing the creationist viewpoint do exists in large numbers. Someone commented how creationists should build a probe and send it out into space? Guess what - there are a number of creationist scientists working for Nasa right now. You're too late with your suggestion.

How many embrace it is irrelevant, Project Steve will show you as much. None of the scientists who are Creationists are using Creationism in their work (or if they are, they certainly aren't publishing it). I've often heard the argument of how many great Scientists such as Newton and Pasteur were Creationists, putting aside the age they lived in this argument still makes no sense. They did not use Creationism in their fruitful scientific pursuits.

edit: This will probably be my last post, repeatedly telling me to have an open mind hoping somehow that nth examination of their unscientific material is going to sway me is waring thin. I want to see some predictions and data for Creationism. I've read enough half baked attacks.

last edited by Rommel at 19:34:09 08/Sep/05

Rommel: just curious, what exactly is your background (you mentioned biology)?

You seem really intelligent and eloquent and make excellent arguments. I take my hat off to you, good sir.

last edited by korbs at 20:38:17 08/Sep/05

You should be aware that there are two groups of creationists. Those that beleive the earth is 6000 years old and those that beleive that the earth is as old as science tell us it is. The ancient creationists beleive in the big bang and other such theories accepted in science and show how they point to ID.

...

Also regarding the Noah's flood here is a creationists view that agrees with the view that the flood could not have been global.

I am aware of old earth creationists and I think their position is untenable. They try to mesh the Bible and evolution together and by doing so negate the primary message of the Christian faith which is that there was no death in the world until the Fall of Man when man sinned. The wages of sin is death. You sin, you go to hell. Jesus came and took our place so that we would be saved from our sins. If Genesis isn't literal truth, then there was no Fall of Man and therefore Jesus accomplished nothing for us. All through the Bible Genesis is referred to by many people including Jesus. By negating a literal Genesis, you negate the entire Christian faith. If God wanted to say each day of creation was millions and millions of years, He could have said "and each day was a very very long time". But He didn't.

As for them saying that the flood of Noah wasn't global, once again they're trying to fit into what evolution says. The Bible is clear on this - the flood was global. If the flood only filled Noah's local valley, why didn't God just tell them to move? There are many online articles explaining why the old earth creationist view point is incorrect so I won't bother going into all the details.

You continue to accuse me of being close-minded to creationist sources and urge me consider their logic

Sorry Rommel, I wasn't speaking to you specifically. My comments are made in general. The majority of people only read what they already agree with. If you read both sides, good for you. I'm also a person that likes to research both sides of any argument.

The reason I mentioned that creation-believing scientists are out there is more to answer the accusation often made that you can't do real science if you believe in a literal Genesis. Regardless of your faith, you can still apply scientific method to all areas of science.

And I agree with wrapping up posting... I'm pretty much done. All in all it's been a good thread. I've got a few more evolution theories and subjects to look at and have had to think about just what it is that I believe in.

Rommel: just curious, what exactly is your background (you mentioned biology)?

Genetics, Human Physiology and Neuroscience.

This thread has become highly amusing. More so than just serious debate.

Also you can't use the bible in any debate. it's just a story book with additional teachings such as the ten commandmants. forget the bible.

Lets work with physical evidence here.

I am aware of old earth creationists and I think their position is untenable. They try to mesh the Bible and evolution together and by doing so negate the primary message of the Christian faith which is that there was no death in the world until the Fall of Man when man sinned. The wages of sin is death. You sin, you go to hell. Jesus came and took our place so that we would be saved from our sins. If Genesis isn't literal truth, then there was no Fall of Man and therefore Jesus accomplished nothing for us. All through the Bible Genesis is referred to by many people including Jesus. By negating a literal Genesis, you negate the entire Christian faith. If God wanted to say each day of creation was millions and millions of years, He could have said "and each day was a very very long time". But He didn't.

You've prob heard this before but in case you haven't, the ancient creationists view is that the Hebrew word (ie not the English *translation*) for day has three meanings; 12 hours, 24 hours, or a long period of time. So their view is that it is a literal Genesis.
Regarding ...no death until man sinned..., Romans 5:12 specifically says death came to men, it doesn't mention animals and other lifeforms.

As for them saying that the flood of Noah wasn't global, once again they're trying to fit into what evolution says. The Bible is clear on this - the flood was global. If the flood only filled Noah's local valley, why didn't God just tell them to move? There are many online articles explaining why the old earth creationist view point is incorrect so I won't bother going into all the details.

Again the idea is that a local flood *is* a literal interpretation of the Bible. If you could link some of those articles you mentioned I would appreciate it.

Cleatus, as requested:

Institute for Creation Research:
The Literal Week of Creation
and
Why Christians Should Believe in a Global Flood

Creation Science Evangelism:
Points To Ponder About The Flood

Got Questions:
Does Genesis chapter 1 mean literal 24-hour days?

Google has a number of sites out there covering the different view points. My position is this:

1) God could've told us quite easily in Genesis that days weren't really 24 hour days in creation week and that the flood wasn't global. But He didn't.
2) There is no need to abandon the literal meaning when there are numerous theories and much data and observations that support a literal Genesis.
3) I believe the Bible is God's word to us. There should be no need to overlay complex ways of interpreting the Bible. Why change what the Bible says to fit with a recent theory (last 200 years) put forward by man?

I'm just glad Rommel put all my thoughts forward for me. Cheers mate. But like him, I too am tired of this bulls***, have been for years. Whenever I see Creationist crap rear its ugly head being pushed out there as 'real' science I just calmly walk away......

Who exactly is supposed to have written Genesis?

eu4ia has stated a few times that God wrote it... what does that mean, he dropped down the first few scrolls of the Bible from the sky?

Oh and again, well said Rommel :P

last edited by evinco at 00:56:56 09/Sep/05

While there are those who have alternate theories, most of the evidence points to Moses writing the first five books of the Bible (called the Pentateuch).

As for me saying that God wrote it, it is believed that the authors of the Bible were inspired by the Holy Spirit and thus the Bible is God's word. That's a matter of belief of course, but that's what religion is.

Im not sure if you have answered this yet eu4ia, but if you believe that religion is a belief system and that creationism is based around the bible, that it would be wrong to teach creationism, as it is belief based, in a science class?

One last chunk of bulls*** to debunk...

Someone commented how creationists should build a probe and send it out into space? Guess what - there are a number of creationist scientists working for Nasa right now. You're too late with your suggestion. :)

Interesting! So last night I decide I'll ask an old friend that works in JPL (NASA's Jet Propulsion Labratory) if he knows of any creationists working amongst his staff. Not unexpectedly he replied...

There isn't exactly a screening process for belief systems to get a Job at NASA, but if there are really any creationist among us, they have kept it to themselves & better continue to do so. There is no room for bad science or bad astronomy in JPL.

Then, just for s***s & giggle, I went into the #maestro channel (the IRC channel for the JPL engineers responsible for the mars rovers.) They weren't as political :D ...

[22:46:43] * Now talking in #maestro
[22:46:43] * Topic is 'http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17998'
[22:46:43] * Set by Justin-!J.Lewis@jpl.nasa.gov on Wed Sep 07 09:27:38
[22:48:51] (dem0n-) how many creationist work at nasa? any of you guys creationists?
[22:49:05] * Jupiter` sets mode: +b *!*demonix@*.qld.optusnet.com.au
[22:49:06] * You were kicked from #maestro by Jupiter` (This channel is for science, not troublemakers.)

heh.

Why are they assuming the bible is true?, everything on that site refers back to the bible, which is why I said before, they have the answers in the bible, and just shape the evidence to make it true.

They assume its true because there is enough historical evidence to backup times, dates, places, peoples, wars, etc with passages from the bible. The bible is very accurate when you can cross reference so many historical events written by people through the ages not to mention all the archeological finds that match up with what is written in the bible.

I'm just glad Rommel put all my thoughts forward for me. Cheers mate. But like him, I too am tired of this bulls***, have been for years. Whenever I see Creationist crap rear its ugly head being pushed out there as 'real' science I just calmly walk away......

Unfortunately for you, real science is backing intelligent design / creation far more than evolution as the birth of our origins. Science to this day can't explain WHY things like gravity / physics laws exist, yet they can tell you how they work, what forces are involved, they can even manipulate them to a degree, but they still don't know how they came to be.

Who exactly is supposed to have written Genesis?

The first five books of the bible were written by moses.

I was going to close this thread now, since everybody seems to have said their bit, but this last comment from eu4ia (thanks for taking part in the thread, btw) has me intrigued (bits in bold especially):

I am aware of old earth creationists and I think their position is untenable. They try to mesh the Bible and evolution together and by doing so negate the primary message of the Christian faith which is that there was no death in the world until the Fall of Man when man sinned. The wages of sin is death. You sin, you go to hell. Jesus came and took our place so that we would be saved from our sins. If Genesis isn't literal truth, then there was no Fall of Man and therefore Jesus accomplished nothing for us. All through the Bible Genesis is referred to by many people including Jesus. By negating a literal Genesis, you negate the entire Christian faith. If God wanted to say each day of creation was millions and millions of years, He could have said "and each day was a very very long time". But He didn't.

From your argument above, It seems pretty clear to me that you have a vested interest in creationism 'needing to be literal' in order to validate your belief and give you the green-light into heaven.

This is why so many people get frustrated with creationists, because they cannot emotionally disassociate themselves with it (it is too fundamental to their own world view/identity), take a step back and look at it from an unbiased, critical perspective.

An internal monologue of a creationist goes something like this

conscious thought: "If genesis is wrong, then my belief is invalidated"
subconscious ego: "My belief cannot be invalidated, it represents my core values and identity"
conscious thought: "Therefore, genesis cannot be wrong"
Mouth: "Evolution is absurd and is clearly designed to lead people away from god"

Thats because they've spent the time studying the subjects and have come to the conclusion that one theory is far more valid than another.

Where i went to school they taught us both theories as part of the science curriculum and the left the choice up to us.

This thread wouldn't be half as good without eu4ia's input. Did a very good job putting across his points, regardless of how they are viewed.

22:46:43] * Now talking in #maestro
[22:46:43] * Topic is 'http://www.marstoday.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=17998'
[22:46:43] * Set by Justin-!J.Lewis@jpl.nasa.gov on Wed Sep 07 09:27:38
[22:48:51] (dem0n-) how many creationist work at nasa? any of you guys creationists?
[22:49:05] * Jupiter` sets mode: +b *!*demonix@*.qld.optusnet.com.au
[22:49:06] * You were kicked from #maestro by Jupiter` (This channel is for science, not troublemakers.)

heh.

LOL I was laughing IRL from that post :)

Im not sure if you have answered this yet eu4ia, but if you believe that religion is a belief system and that creationism is based around the bible, that it would be wrong to teach creationism, as it is belief based, in a science class?

I think I did cover it Viper - basically I'm happy to admit that my religion is, well, a religion. :) My gripe with education can be summed up as this. I am of the opinion that evolution is not fact. Now let me be clear on this: There are different meanings for evolution.

1) Cosmic evolution - the origin of time, space and matter. (Big bang)
2) Chemical evolution - the origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3) Stellar and planetary evolution. No one has ever seen a star form.
4) Organic evolution. The origin of life.
5) Macro-evolution. Changing from one kind to another. Never proven.

6) Micro-evolution (or variations within a kind). This is the only one that has been observed.

Number 6 is the only one that is scientific fact. The others are religious. To teach all of it as fact is dishonest. Evolutionists have blurred the line between the facts and their interpretation of the facts. If you're interested, watch those videos I provided links to on page 11 of this thread. They explain my position in far more detail. If nothing else, you'll come away with an understanding of the creationist view point. This debate will be going on for years and decades no doubt, so why not familiarise yourself with the details of why we're complaining about evolution?

I was taught that science is objective. The fact that the theories of creationism aren't even mentioned unless being ridiculed is proof that science is not taught objectively. Creationist interpretations of the facts are as equally valid as the evolutionist interpretations.

Schools should teach both sides in science, because neither has been fully proved or disproved but both have much supporting data and reasonable interpretations. I have previously thought that neither should be taught but that’s silly. People want to know where we came from and how the earth came to be. But be objective. First day of science I was told “Science has nothing to do with God”. Why? If every observation made today can be explained by creationist theories, why is God excluded? They’re still valid theories. They haven’t been disproved. Now you can say the burden of proof is on the person putting forward the theory. And I agree. But the same applies to evolution.

I'm not going to go into more details or subjects because like I said yesterday, I think I'm pretty much covered the main points of my position.

But yes, good thread. As I said, this debate will go on for a long time but that's not a bad thing.

last edited by eu4ia at 10:40:37 09/Sep/05

(no-one is taking you seriously since you said the world is 6000 years old and knig arthur mistook dragons for dinosaurs you realise?)

Hehe. Yep, I cringed when I first heard such ideas. Check out those videos fpot - you might be surprised.

it is a bad thing that this debate continues there is no scientific data to support ID and should not be taught at schools as science.
teach it in religous studies or something.

5) Macro-evolution. Changing from one kind to another. Never proven.

I haven't been following this thread closely, but I saw this point and remembered that I'd seen this which seems to offer some evidence that macro-evolution occurs (I haven't read the document but am just throwing this link in as an FYI)

eu4ia you strike me as a crackpot.

You can't believe in evolution but the world being made in 7 days by an invisible old man with a white beard is fine.

Btw if there is a god, who made him/her/it ?

Of course the flip side is if you believe in evolution and it all started with a big bang and slowly some chemical reactions... How did the stuff to make the big bang get there ?

Btw if there is a god, who made him/her/it ?

Allah, stupid

Obes, neither side will be proven - each side is a belief. But one side is saying their belief is fact and then saying belief systems are irrelevant. It's hypocrisy.

I'm not a crackpot, I'm a Christian.

it is a bad thing that this debate continues there is no scientific data to support ID and should not be taught at schools as science

Nope, sorry, you're just plain wrong. There is scientific data to support creationism.

There is scientific data to support creationism.

Again, haven't read the thread - but I can't believe that there's anywhere near as much scientific evidence to support creationism as there is for evolution, billions-of-years-old-earth, and all that jazz.

Btw if there is a god, who made him/her/it ?

I dunno, Internet?

If you're interested trog, have a look at those videos I posted on page 11 if you have the time. The first one covers the age of the world from a creationist view point and shows how the observed facts fit what we're told in the Bible - that of a young earth. I'm not a person who just takes on pure faith what the Bible says - I wanted to find some support for its version of history too.

You're arguing about creation and evolution when the facts they both stem from can't even be explained. Science can't even explain how space, time, energy, and the laws of physics came to be let alone provide you with the factual evidence when it comes to the origin of our species.

science might not be able to, but I sure can

But one side is saying their belief is fact and then saying belief systems are irrelevant. It's hypocrisy.

Science in general assumes that all hypotheses can be wrong. In fact, Scientists constantly try and replicate and disprove hypotheses all the time. So far, evolution is what we understand of how we ended up like we did.

Science calls religon pseudoscience because religion (often) doesn't try and replicate or disprove their conjectures. Instead it quotes from a book, which was designed for ignorant and uneducated people. Would pesents and slaves of the roman empire understand what a billion years is? Would they understand that everything is made up of the same components of stars?

Also, hypocrisy on this matter is equal. Religion discounts science because a book says otherwise. Yet, there are thousands of religious scrolls and manuscripts which extend into the dawn of time which teach of different events that created the earth. Why is creationism more relivent than other religious theories?

I'm not saying that having faith in your religion is wrong, far from it. I do have problems that one particular religon should teach religious conjectures in a science class.

ID is NOT SCIENCE OK the " hey rocky watch me pull a rabbit out of this hat" theory of how we got here NOT science.

so the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible , too bad.
theres lots of data to conflicts with the bible.
dont see the bible being revised
but now they want science altered to suit the bible .

1. Building the Ark

Wood is not the best material for shipbuilding

stopped reading after that. http://www.falklandnews.com/public/wallpaper/images/Endeavour-(c)-Spruce1280x96.jpg
what were you thinking sailing that thing round the world Captain Cook? You are lucky it didnt leak.

Also I read that Mesapatomian tales tell of a great flood, but as to whether it is related to noah, I thought that Genesis would have just been metaphorical, or is it meant word for word, creation in exactly 144 hours

last edited by Tuco at 19:53:34 09/Sep/05

Those classic tall ships are great to watch & look at.

this conversation is getting old. start talking about good stuff like whether Robin Hood was a legend or real.

what were you thinking sailing that thing round the world Captain Cook? You are lucky it didnt leak.

Good job that Captian cook wasn't required to carry two of every land animal. (for that matter used 4000 year old ship building techniques)

whether Robin Hood was a legend or real.

That's easy! He was both!

so the theory of evolution conflicts with the bible , too bad.
theres lots of data to conflicts with the bible.
dont see the bible being revised
but now they want science altered to suit the bible .

Nope. I don't care if evolution is revised or not. I do care that it's called science when it's not. Science is fine as it is - but the theory of evolution is not science. The only part of it that is science is micro-evolution.

* thread hijack *
(because the thread's going starting to go over the same stuff anyway)

Those classic tall ships are great to watch & look at

I'd love to go on a ship like that. There are a few operators around (eg: Tall Ship Sailing Cruises Australia - anyone here had a good (or bad) experience with any of them?

but the theory of evolution is not science. The only part of it that is science is micro-evolution.

That isn't true at all, at least in regard to modern evolutionary theory.

Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are restricted to those that can be inferred from confirmable data—the results obtained through observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists. Anything that can be observed or measured is amenable to scientific investigation. Explanations that cannot be based on empirical evidence are not a part of science.

Wait, so if there is no evolution, and Adam and Eve exist as we as humans exist today, what are the skeletons that have been dug up that evolutionists call our ancestors? Are they considered animals and completely different from humans?
http://hannover.park.org/Canada/Museum/man/TITLE.gif
All those sorta dudes there where from skeletons, particularly skulls, that have been dug up and where a clear evolution can be seen... do creationists just count all them as animals? Like god kept building different animals out of clay and them chucking them down to earth whenever he finished each one? Did god release s***ty unfinished alpha and beta versions?

Much like religion itself, s***ty alpha and beta versions went before it's current s***ty existence as it's ancestors showing a clear line of religios evolution.

Paganism had several of it's practices incorporated into catholic practices ... so the larger more well established religions certainly weren't created in their current form by god so why would the world have been so?

All those sorta dudes there where from skeletons, particularly skulls, that have been dug up and where a clear evolution can be seen... do creationists just count all them as animals?

I'll quote from:
"Is there really evidence that man descended from the apes?" Full article.

• Australopithecus—there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil ‘Lucy’. However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that ‘Lucy’ and her like are not on the way to becoming human. For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
• Homo habilis—there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types—such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an ‘invalid taxon’. That is, it never existed as such.
• Homo erectus—many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together.

Conclusion: There is no fossil evidence that man is the product of evolution. The missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist.

Another article - far longer and more detailed:
Is there fossil evidence of 'missing links' between humans and apes? Did ancient humans live millions of years ago?

An article regarding the scientific analysis of australopithecines:
Man...Apes...Australopithecines...each Uniquely Different

Paganism had several of it's practices incorporated into catholic practices

Many pagan practices embedded in the catholic church were incorporated to bring pagans into the faith. Many don't agree with those practices and traditions being in the catholic church. I'm one of them. The Christian religion wasn't made up from a mismatch of other pagan religions, but it has been affected by world views since.

last edited by eu4ia at 14:56:46 10/Sep/05

Many pagan practices embedded in the catholic church were incorporated to bring pagans into the faith. Many don't agree with those practices and traditions being in the catholic church. I'm one of them. The Christian religion wasn't made up from a mismatch of other pagan religions, but it has been affected by world views since.

pwh0re a Chrstian with a clue, not many of them around.
So you would also be in the boat that homosexual acts are strictly forbidden and that all churches that say it is ok are going against the word of the bible and therfor the word of God, so then these churches are poisoned and havens for the spread of Sin?

um so where is all the evidence of god .
thats right there is none
so how can u teach a god put us here theory in science at school
what bring out the bible in science class

1) God could've told us quite easily in Genesis that days weren't really 24 hour days in creation week and that the flood wasn't global. But He didn't.

GOD: And lo i created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th!
N BC Shepard: Really? holy crap you could get a lot of work done in 6 days. Do you really mean 6 days?
GOD: Not really but it'd be a little difficut for you to understand
N BC Shepard: OH come on.. i'm pretty good with numbers you know
GOD: Ok.. so what's 10 times 10?
N BC Shepard: something really freaking big
GOD: yeah well imagine that number multiplied by itself and then the number you get out of that multiplied by itself and then do it again and you're starting to get close to how long it ACTUALLY took me.
N BC Shepard: ok.. lets just stick with 6 days.

And thats not even starting on the whole "what is a day to a god" argument.

Also it's third hand at best but i seem to recall hearing that there was some research that gave a simple formula that when you pump ALL the times in genesis into actually comes up with dates that are fairly close to currently accepted dates.

3) I believe the Bible is God's word to us. There should be no need to overlay complex ways of interpreting the Bible. Why change what the Bible says to fit with a recent theory (last 200 years) put forward by man?

Because no-one i know can speak ancient hebrew so i can't know if these dodgy english translations weren't f***ed up by the many human(and therefore fallible) translators?

While i think the bible has a lot of good things in it and is quite possibly even inspired by a "greater being"(hell apparantly it suggested things to the isralites that would have controlled disease better than anyone until the renaissance period), i feel that to expect us to trust the entirety of the "new king james version" literaly without a patch or at least an official dev post on it's authenticity is a bit naive.

So you would also be in the boat that homosexual acts are strictly forbidden and that all churches that say it is ok are going against the word of the bible and therfor the word of God, so then these churches are poisoned and havens for the spread of Sin?

Pretty much, yep.

so how can u teach a god put us here theory in science at school
what bring out the bible in science class

Have you read my posts in this thread? I'll summarise quickly in answer: Because the creation theory is supported by scientific observations at least as much as the evolution theory, if not more so. Defining the exact scope of science teaching is a complex one. But if you refuse to allow God into science, then you should also refuse to allow evolution theory on the same thinking.

GOD: And lo i created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th!
N BC Shepard: Really? holy crap you could get a lot of work done in 6 days. Do you really mean 6 days?
GOD: Not really but it'd be a little difficut for you to understand
N BC Shepard: OH come on.. i'm pretty good with numbers you know
GOD: Ok.. so what's 10 times 10?
N BC Shepard: something really freaking big
GOD: yeah well imagine that number multiplied by itself and then the number you get out of that multiplied by itself and then do it again and you're starting to get close to how long it ACTUALLY took me.
N BC Shepard: ok.. lets just stick with 6 days.

Why bother with maths - why not say "Each day was a very, very long time - longer than many of your lifetimes. I could explain that to a child, so God could surely have explained it better.

Because no-one i know can speak ancient hebrew so i can't know if these dodgy english translations weren't f***ed up by the many human(and therefore fallible) translators?

Funny how the dodgy version we have today is accepted as being the most accurate book in the history of man - by believers and non-believers. They have found lost cities and places based on locations described in the Bible. And I've already posted this point – how, when ancient texts have been found, they have proven that the accuracy of the Bible has been maintained for thousands of years.

feel that to expect us to trust the entirety of the "new king james version" literaly without a patch or at least an official dev post on it's authenticity is a bit naive.

Sure, we can validate the archaeological aspects of the Bible, etc., but at some point faith is called for. It is religion. But that's not to say we can't look at the world around us scientifically and test what we see against what we're told - now that is science.