Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

ruiner · Feb 10, 2004, 07:38 pm

Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.

This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise.

The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.

Which falsifies rapid decay theory. Seperate dating techniques show the Earth's age to be in the 4.5 billion year range. Dozens of dataing techniques show the Earth is older than 100,000 years. This "10,000" year old earth prediction by rapid decay theory is not a stunning revelation, but rather a stunning blow to the theory.

Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field.

Scientists only have pre-conceived notions of an old earth because the evidence shows it to be true. The evidence is incompatible with a young earth.

and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians.
Or more specifically young earth creationists. Plenty of Chrisitan theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists do not accept the rapid decay model.
I wonder, can anyone other than young earth creationists be found who subscribe to this rapid decay model?

This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist.

There is no bias like faith based bias

Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field!

Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young.
This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense.

fogus · Feb 10, 2004, 08:11 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Most people realize that the people who wrote the bible in the past, believe that the people believed what they wrote. That's not the real issue. I would have gladly wrote the same letter that Barr wrote if you would have asked me. Quoting Barr as an authority gives the impression that he supports the fundimentalist view of the literal bible, and he does not.

A few hundred years ago doctors believed that bleeding a patient cured disease, but that wasn't true. No one doubts the sincerity of the doctors of that time, but science and knowledge changes.

Your post brought an important point to the whole debate. You believe that a literal interpretation of genesis is absolutely necessary for the belief of Christianity to be true. Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history. Many of the articles in AIG make this arguement in their conclusions, like in the recent article on the speed of light, time and the vast distances between stars and galaxies in the universe. There scientific arguement was hopelessly weak and meaningless, but then in the conclusions the author stated that you must believe this or genesis and the whole foundation of Christianity belief is false.

This issue of time and science is an important one and the classic proof is the vast distances between the galaxies, time and the speed of light. The arguement presented by AIG recently to squeeze billions of years into a few thousand was hopeless beyond belief.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I had no intention of making Barr look like an authority on this issue. (Sorry if I did, I didn’t know what Barr thought about the issue of the truth of the Bible) He was not alive at the creation of the earth. I think that Barr is an authority on Old Testament scripture and Hebrew. The only entity in existence at creation was God. He is an authority on such matters. Genesis 1-11 is one of his personal letters on the creation of the earth.

Language and the meaning of language is a subject which can be studied more easily and conclusively than science and medicine. Would you agree that that the meaning of the words in Genesis chapters on creation and the flood intended to mean that creation took 6 days, that the flood was world wide? Or do you mean to say that because scientists thought that bleeding people was a good idea that we might be incorrect about the meaning of Genesis? I hope we have some common ground.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I think I agree with you on this but it depends on what you mean “interpret”. I do not manipulate numbers, or stay ignorant about evolutionary issues. I do believe that no data cannot fit the thousands of years time scale that the Bible suggests.

I didn’t know that AiG was trying to squeeze billions of years into thousands. I don't think that they think this is necessary. They believe in thousands of years, which fits the bibles thousands of years fine (no squeeze necessary).

fogus · Feb 10, 2004, 08:46 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.

This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The issue is not who believes it (be it a figure of authority or a majority of people or any one else), or why they believe it (if I say that 2 sides of a triangle are longer than a third just because I am a man, does that make it wrong?), or that you will get hurt if you believe it, or if it is “western” or “eastern”, or if it is old or young, or if a mean person believes it (if Karl Marx was a failure of a father does that make communism wrong?), or if the person making a claim lives the opposite of what he believes (just because Paul (in the Bible) killed Christians, does that mean that he is wrong in saying that killing is wrong?). The issue is whether it is true or false. Whether it conforms to reality or not.

I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.

Which falsifies rapid decay theory. Seperate dating techniques show the Earth's age to be in the 4.5 billion year range. Dozens of dataing techniques show the Earth is older than 100,000 years. This "10,000" year old earth prediction by rapid decay theory is not a stunning revelation, but rather a stunning blow to the theory.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field.

Scientists only have pre-conceived notions of an old earth because the evidence shows it to be true. The evidence is incompatible with a young earth.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians.

Or more specifically young earth creationists. Plenty of Chrisitan theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists do not accept the rapid decay model.
I wonder, can anyone other than young earth creationists be found who subscribe to this rapid decay model?
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

refer to my first response in this post.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist.

There is no bias like faith based bias
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

There is no bias like the bias of an evolutionist. (Or do you really want to argue like this?) You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people. We are biased, so are you. How do you measure biasness? And again it doesn’t matter if we are biased or not, the truth matters. Just because I am biased doesn’t mean I am wrong.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field!

Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young.
This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote. I never remember him making such an inference. And if he did, that is not what we are talking about. I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory. You seem to do a great job of attacking me, and any one who I quote! I hope we can debate the ISSUES soon rather than people and groups of people. I don't care if he says that because triangles have three sides that the earth is 10,000 years old.

ruiner · Feb 10, 2004, 09:49 pm

I am only interested in the scientific verdict. Science does not deal in truths, only models that fit observation.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
certainly not, the rapid decay theory only conforms to prior belief that the earth is <10,000 years old. It is not supported by any other evidence and its entire premise is faulty as it cannot explain past magnetic reversals. Simply saying they were caused by a flood is not an explaination. There has to be a mechanism for how floods can cause such a thing.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Most dating techniques have upper limits of less than 4.5 billion years and cannot be expected to agree. But a number of dating techniques with higher limits do agree on this date.

On the otherhand the vast majority of dating techniques show the Earth to be far older than the 10,000 years proposed by this magnetic decay theory.

-Ice cores show the earth to be 100,000+ years old
-the lack of naturally occuring isotopes with short halflives is only explainable given enough time for them to have decayed.
-Nearly all radio-dating techniques show the earth to be older than 10,000 years. This includes carbon14 dating which has a relatively short halflife
-the geological column itself is ample evidence of an old earth

But I stick with radio-dating as the main evidence for an old earth

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
There can be discrepancies but scientists know what is safe to date and what is not safe to date. Dating sealife by carbondating their shells is a no-no. But dating land animal remains by carbondating their bones is reliable.

Even so, in general, overall, radio-dating techniques are reliable. When multiple radiodating techniques collaborate on a given date, there is very little room to argue without claiming all the dating methods were wrong but just happened to come to the same conclusion by chance.
Appealing to known occasions where radiodating can be innaccurate does not wave away the majority of cases where there is absolutely no reason to assume they are innacurate, certainly not by 10,000s of magnititude.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Certainly not. My comments were aimed at creationists only and not all of them. Perhaps i should have made that more clear.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
How do you measure biasness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
biasometers !

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young.
This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense.

What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
The fallacy was of false dilema, he igored the possibility that both reversal theory and decay theory could be wrong. He set up a "one or the other" situation by implying that because reversal theory had problems this somehow strengthened decay theory. But like you said it doesn't really matter to the issue.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Right, I couldn't care less what the dynamo theory is or how it bears out, like I said it is not a dilema between rapid decay and dynamo. Wile was promoting rapid decay and I can see it doesn't work in several areas. Theories have to be supported by observations, the more the better. In fact I would say both rapid decay and reversal should be hypothesis, but whatever. In the case of rapid decay theory it proposes an earth <10,000 years old but there are a number of major observations that contradict. For example the ice-cores, radio-dating, etc.
Also I don't know that there isn't one, but I noticed that Wile never explained how rapid decay theory actually explains magnetic reversals. I realise he mentioned catastrophies and especially a flood as being causes for magnetic pole reversal. But is there even a mechanism for a flood to be able to reverse the earths magnetic poles?

shunyadragon · Feb 10, 2004, 10:19 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
fogus

Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history.

I think I agree with you on this but it depends on what you mean “interpret”. I do not manipulate numbers, or stay ignorant about evolutionary issues. I do believe that no data cannot fit the thousands of years time scale that the Bible suggests.

I didn’t know that AiG was trying to squeeze billions of years into thousands. I don't think that they think this is necessary. They believe in thousands of years, which fits the bibles thousands of years fine (no squeeze necessary).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

If you base your belief strictly on the bible and do not bring science into the arguement then thousands of years is what the bible says and the debate ends, no problem. You believe the bible is literal and I believe that science provides the best answer for evolution and the history of existence. But if you bring science into the arguement as AIG does then there is grounds for debate and the squeeze is on.

AIG definitely trys to use scientific data to provide proof for the biblical version of the history of existence. The recent article on the problem of the speed of light, time and the vast distances between the galaxies and stars is an important example. AIG used concepts like 'time dilation' and 'event horizon' to argue that the vast distances and the billions of years of time required to explain what we observe in the universe is not billions of years and great distances between objects in space, but thousands of years and much shorter distances between the stars and galaxies, and much slower rotation speeds of the galaxies. This is a squeeze of unbelievable dimensions, based on the known concepts of physics and all sciences. It is a hoplessly useless arguement and manipulation of data in an incomprehensible way. You may not manipulat data, but you often quote AIG who use more blue smoke and mirrors than the circus.

You asked in a previous post if science recognizes and has records of their mistakes, failures and things like unresolved problems. Yes and the list is long. Einstein himself lamented over his misconceptions and mistakes that plagued his work. There are many records of of failures and mistakes of the past. The Piltdown man and other false information from fossils used in the past is well documented and recognized. Recently an important paleontologist in Japan and geologist in India acknowledged that they falsified evidence after other research uncovered inconsistencies in their work. This is the way of science. We fully acknowledge our mistakes and the system is designed to uncover these problems over time, like the instance of the false evidence presented by the Japanese and Indian scientists.

When the Smithsonain Institute realized that they had perchased a bogus fossil of a primative bird/dinosaur they admited it.

takes12no1 · Feb 11, 2004, 12:06 am

If God is as smart as his believers claim he is, then instead of creating animals types one by one, he probably would have designed a simple algorithm(evolution-natural selection-sexual selection) that given enough time, which he really would not care about, considering how long his lifespan is supposed to be, would generate the results he wanted (humans).

Linguist have proven contradictions in the bible, which points to the coruption of Gods word by man. Therefore I would advise against attesting that the corrupted article is in fact God's word (assuming we could figure out which version to choose) and figuring that the earth is around 6000 rotations around the sun old. He might get pissed, and he's pretty powerful.

I think he's pretty much checking us out thinking, "Why are they hashing out this stuff, when they should be loving and helping each other, and following my sons' example. Besides, I never said how I made everything."

shunyadragon · Feb 11, 2004, 01:09 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
fogus
Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory.

This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise.

I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

The problem with rapid decay is that it is not a legitamate theory or a view of the nature of the history of the magnetic field because it is only based on recent measurements of the fluctuations in the magnetic field. The 'Creation Science' advocates simply latched onto it because it showed a rapid change. Unfortunately there is not enough direct long term 'direct measurements' that would fit the requirements of the 'Creation Science' advocates to confirm the 'young or old earth' view. But if you correlate these direct measurements with the 'indirect measurements' which the geologists use the data definitely fits the cyclic pattern of changes in the magnetic field over millions of years. How can a few years data concerning the changes in the strength of the electric field be used to draw any conclusions of the long term fate of the electric field?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What dating methods show the earth is far younger?

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Preconcieved notions? There isn't any evidence for a world flood. Where do you get that much water?

PeterAngelo · Feb 11, 2004, 09:04 pm

damnrad:

The laws of physics (gravity) are as real as your ass.

They are measurable and consistant.

That is all that counts - all else is imagination, dreams, and wishful thinking.

Unfortunately we are able to self-actualize ourselves and "see" the universe through eyes that have evolved by sheer will.

If that is not god - and the only way he/she/it/we can "see" our creation - what is?

What is the definition of is?

Why should we care - because we are god - that's why.

That's our choice - good god - or bad god.

bmaestro · Feb 12, 2004, 04:19 pm

before anyone brings up the "irreducable complexity" of the eye as a proof of intention in creation, and a falacy of evolution, let me refute that. the human eye has optic nerves that go over the rods and cones in the back of our eyeballs. if god had created us in his image, as the bible explains, why did he give us eyes with these things that obscure our vision, while giving a squid an eye with optic nerves that don't get in the way of rods and cones?

Furthermore, the eye isn't irreducibly complex. By plugging in physical equations for optics, and developing an algorithm (a program/model that searches for the best possible solution, i.e. best focus and definition being output), starting with a simple sheet of light-sensitive material, the computer turns out a spherical shape, with a lens in front to focus light just right. A computer can do it with math in a relatively short time. Why couldn't nature (which selects for the best eyes, plus or minus some physical constraints) do the same over millions of years?

There are no irreducibly complex organs, its just that the scope of evolution is misunderstood. billions of years is far beyond what we can imagine, and in that time, using the simple laws of nature and selecting for the best possible, we get what we have right now. megadiversity. every animal has some shortcomings that are just a product of some tendon getting stuck in the way or whatever, and through this byproducts of evolution, you can even track the course of evolution. Nothings perfect. We have big brains and abstract thought (therefore, science, technology, society, language) because it affected mate choice. Squids have better vision than us because they didn't have the same physical constraints worked into the evolution of their eye.

Any questions?

-b

shunyadragon · Feb 12, 2004, 07:30 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
damnrad:

The laws of physics (gravity) are as real as your ass.

They are measurable and consistant.

That is all that counts - all else is imagination, dreams, and wishful thinking.

Unfortunately we are able to self-actualize ourselves and "see" the universe through eyes that have evolved by sheer will.

If that is not god - and the only way he/she/it/we can "see" our creation - what is?

What is the definition of is?

Why should we care - because we are god - that's why.

That's our choice - good god - or bad god.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Gravity is very real in effects, but not absolutely measurable or constant in the universe. That is one of the main puzzles now facing cosmologists and pyhsics. It would solve a lot of the problems if it was absolutely constant and measurable.

PeterAngelo · Feb 13, 2004, 09:07 pm

At least it is somethig tangible (if invisible) god is just imagination.

makeshiftpatriot has it right( and it is a pleasure to read good writing).

I did not mean to give the eye any meaning other than a poetic one.
The "eye" as the proof of the intention of creation is a sweet thought - but very egocentric.

Random nothing is easier to swallow.

shunyadragon · Feb 13, 2004, 09:49 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,)
At least it is somethig tangible (if invisible) god is just imagination.

makeshiftpatriot has it right( and it is a pleasure to read good writing).

I did not mean to give the eye any meaning other than a poetic one.
The "eye" as the proof of the intention of creation is a sweet thought - but very egocentric.

Random nothing is easier to swallow.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Actually scientist consider gravity only tangible in effects. Those that believe in God consider God tangible in effects.

Far more is known today about the progressive development of organs from simple forms to the complex, like the eye, for this to be significant issue. The 'too complex' view of 'Creation Science' advocates is an example of how far behind they are in light of today's knowledge of evolution.

I do notice that our friends of the 'Creation Science' persuasion are silent lately and have not responded to the posts from the evolution advocates. I know jpapadpapa is having a baby, but I don't think that is reason fogus is not responding.

sdcinder · Feb 13, 2004, 10:47 pm

Religion and creationism and evolution. Well, this is an interesting one. I will admit that I have not read the past 15 pages of debate. Even in creationism there are two differing opinions: catastrophism and slow evolution. I myself am a catastraphist. God spoke and BANG it happened. Suddenly there was a flood and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Certainly don't have to be a CHRISTian to believe that one, there is a group in the Philistines I believe that are so deeply involved with the Great Flood that they still build their houses in the shape of boats in honor of their version of Noah. That would validate the significance of the Flood for sure since they are on the opposite side of the world as to where Noah was supposed to be from.

I am thoroughly of the mind that we were created by the Creator of everything. I do not believe that we evolved from apes, from monkeys, from fish, from a pond full of muck. Nope, can't buy that either. Within species? Yes, certainly. I think I hit on this topic in the religion forum though. Someone said that they had never heard the arguement of an amphibian crossing with a mammal and yet in the same breath, I assume, they believe that we have all evolved from primordial soup. Wouldn't that indicate that we were all amphibians? They how in the world did we get all this hair and warm blood??? Oh, yes, one more thing about amphibians, some of them are able to change sex if there are too many of one sex in the area. I am certain that we cannot do that just by shear will of our brain or genetic make-up. I could not decide today that I am going to become male and like women... LOL! Nope, I am quite happy being a woman.

Matthew Cromer · Feb 13, 2004, 11:10 pm

What are we supposed to debate here?

The fact that some kind of evolution and speciation occurs and is the origin of the life we see, or whether the neo darwinian synthesis is in itself an adequate explanation for the evolution and speciation we see?

I don't expect there is going to be much of interest in talking about "Creation Science" which is not compatible with science.

shunyadragon · Feb 14, 2004, 04:47 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Matthew Cromer,)
What are we supposed to debate here?

The fact that some kind of evolution and speciation occurs and is the origin of the life we see, or whether the neo darwinian synthesis is in itself an adequate explanation for the evolution and speciation we see?

I don't expect there is going to be much of interest in talking about "Creation Science" which is not compatible with science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

'Creation Science' is the main opposing view to evolution in the debate. Those that believe in 'Creation Science' believe it is a science.

The issue whether God created existence in the way scientists generally see the universe evolving from some point billions of years ago in time we now call the 'Big Bang' or these events occured without the 'Divine Cause' is a side issue, but the substance for a debate is weak, because the origins are largely unknown. It is simply issue of belief.

shunyadragon · Feb 14, 2004, 05:12 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sdcinder,)
Religion and creationism and evolution. Well, this is an interesting one. I will admit that I have not read the past 15 pages of debate. Even in creationism there are two differing opinions: catastrophism and slow evolution. I myself am a catastraphist. God spoke and BANG it happened. Suddenly there was a flood and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Certainly don't have to be a CHRISTian to believe that one, there is a group in the Philistines I believe that are so deeply involved with the Great Flood that they still build their houses in the shape of boats in honor of their version of Noah. That would validate the significance of the Flood for sure since they are on the opposite side of the world as to where Noah was supposed to be from.

I am thoroughly of the mind that we were created by the Creator of everything. I do not believe that we evolved from apes, from monkeys, from fish, from a pond full of muck. Nope, can't buy that either. Within species? Yes, certainly. I think I hit on this topic in the religion forum though. Someone said that they had never heard the arguement of an amphibian crossing with a mammal and yet in the same breath, I assume, they believe that we have all evolved from primordial soup. Wouldn't that indicate that we were all amphibians? They how in the world did we get all this hair and warm blood??? Oh, yes, one more thing about amphibians, some of them are able to change sex if there are too many of one sex in the area. I am certain that we cannot do that just by shear will of our brain or genetic make-up. I could not decide today that I am going to become male and like women... LOL! Nope, I am quite happy being a woman.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Are you a catastraphist by faith or do you support 'Creation Science'? I believe there are two potentially different views. The faith catastraphist believes existence was created literally as it is described in the Bible and the evidence that science claims for evolution and billions of years of history was created as is. Those that support the 'Creation Science' view believe the scientific evidence supports the short time biblical view of creation.

There is nothing in the evolution view that says amphibians cross with mammals and humans descended monkeys or apes. As to sex it is not uncommon for humans to be born with both male and female traits and some people are born apparently very female, but become male as they mature.

The evolution from a pond full of muck is not exactly how science views the beginnings of life.

Technically in both versions animals and humans come from the same source, the earth, therefore we are all related. What is wrong with the evolutionary model of the relationship between all life on earth? Are the animals so offensive to us we don't want to claim kinship? I think humans might likewise be offensive to animals that they wouldn't want to claim kinship. In our history humans have been more offensive than the animals.

ruiner · Feb 14, 2004, 10:40 am

"'Creation Science' is the main opposing view to evolution in the debate"

But this is like Alchemy being the main opposing view to Chemistry
Does that give it any more credibility? no

shunyadragon · Feb 14, 2004, 10:51 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,)
"'Creation Science' is the main opposing view to evolution in the debate"

But this is like Alchemy being the main opposing view to Chemistry
Does that give it any more credibility? no<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No! Of course not, but the President, more than a third of Congress and a large percentage of the American people believe in one form of 'Creation Science' that is in basic conflict with the foundatin of today's science and that makes it an important debate topic.

Alchemy lives! So does Astrology and other foolish urban myths.

percivale · Feb 14, 2004, 11:36 am

There is a place to teach religious mythology. It's called church. There's also a place to teach science. It's called a science class. It's all well and good to believe in a non-scientific mythology (I have a few such beliefs myself), but to say that it is somehow has the same impartial credibility as evolution, just doesn't hold water.

As far as "Christian Science" goes, there are a great many christians who have a scientific education, and have no trouble integrating the study of evolution into their beliefs. In fact, MOST "Creationists" are actually "Theistic Evolutionists," believing that the hand of "god" is what drives and directs the scientifically observable facts of evolution.

Amongst the "common folk" of the US, the statistics of belief break down something like this...

Creationists - 44%
Theistic Evolutionists - 39%
Natualistic Evolutionists - 10%
Other - 07%

However, among "scientists," the breakdown is significantly different...

Creationists - 05%
Theistic Evolutionists - 40%
Natualistic Evolutionists - 55%

"The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc."

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

All that one has to do is to realize that the majority of religious creation myths where written in ancinet times, and with an ancient's understanding of the world around them. And, "pure" mythlogical creationism has no more credibility than "the earth is flat," or "the sun revolves around the earth," or that dark skinned people are that way because they are "cursed with the mark of Ham." It is only the most radical fringe of religious zealots that advance the purely mythological version of the origin of our species. It is completely possible to be a rational person, driven by reason AND faith.

I know I am.

percivale

PeterAngelo · Feb 14, 2004, 07:26 pm

I think we could all agree that we are here. To get along would be possible if we cared.

Does being able to contemplate ones own death have any purpose other than torture?

Are we in HELL?

A life is a story that ends with ones death. The last page would be an interesting read. I always read the last page of a book to see how the protagonist got there - as I read.

I live my life that way too.

I am conscious of "acting" every moment of every day. I have choreographed my life and surroundings in a way that has me very comfortable and self satisfied at the end of my life.

I am sixty and am not afraid of death. I have what I always wanted - a beautiful family that loves and supports each other - a beachfront condo with no mortgages, car payments, or interest on loans.

I have time to do what I want - and have since I was 45.

The play will end with my death - but I plan to do that myself (barring an unforseen truck). Either heroin or insulin - both work well and fast.

When I am not healthy enough to have fun my family knows I will go easy.

That is a successful life to me. I made it happen with will - effort - education - experiance - and the belief in the ability to "create" ones own world by will.

We are all god until we die.

I am a good god who makes great children 5 boys, I girl, 4 grand-children.

I fulfilled the prime directive - with great pleasure.

Gravity has effects - so does this little god.

I have TEN angels so far who surround and protect me. I truly do feel like god when I see them smile with a sparkle in their eyes.

Feb 10, 2004, 08:11 pm	#222 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Most people realize that the people who wrote the bible in the past, believe that the people believed what they wrote. That's not the real issue. I would have gladly wrote the same letter that Barr wrote if you would have asked me. Quoting Barr as an authority gives the impression that he supports the fundimentalist view of the literal bible, and he does not. A few hundred years ago doctors believed that bleeding a patient cured disease, but that wasn't true. No one doubts the sincerity of the doctors of that time, but science and knowledge changes. Your post brought an important point to the whole debate. You believe that a literal interpretation of genesis is absolutely necessary for the belief of Christianity to be true. Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history. Many of the articles in AIG make this arguement in their conclusions, like in the recent article on the speed of light, time and the vast distances between stars and galaxies in the universe. There scientific arguement was hopelessly weak and meaningless, but then in the conclusions the author stated that you must believe this or genesis and the whole foundation of Christianity belief is false. This issue of time and science is an important one and the classic proof is the vast distances between the galaxies, time and the speed of light. The arguement presented by AIG recently to squeeze billions of years into a few thousand was hopeless beyond belief. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I had no intention of making Barr look like an authority on this issue. (Sorry if I did, I didn’t know what Barr thought about the issue of the truth of the Bible) He was not alive at the creation of the earth. I think that Barr is an authority on Old Testament scripture and Hebrew. The only entity in existence at creation was God. He is an authority on such matters. Genesis 1-11 is one of his personal letters on the creation of the earth. Language and the meaning of language is a subject which can be studied more easily and conclusively than science and medicine. Would you agree that that the meaning of the words in Genesis chapters on creation and the flood intended to mean that creation took 6 days, that the flood was world wide? Or do you mean to say that because scientists thought that bleeding people was a good idea that we might be incorrect about the meaning of Genesis? I hope we have some common ground. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I think I agree with you on this but it depends on what you mean “interpret”. I do not manipulate numbers, or stay ignorant about evolutionary issues. I do believe that no data cannot fit the thousands of years time scale that the Bible suggests. I didn’t know that AiG was trying to squeeze billions of years into thousands. I don't think that they think this is necessary. They believe in thousands of years, which fits the bibles thousands of years fine (no squeeze necessary). ~Fogus

Feb 10, 2004, 08:46 pm	#223 (permalink) (top)
fogus Molten Ash Posts: 67	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory. This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The issue is not who believes it (be it a figure of authority or a majority of people or any one else), or why they believe it (if I say that 2 sides of a triangle are longer than a third just because I am a man, does that make it wrong?), or that you will get hurt if you believe it, or if it is “western” or “eastern”, or if it is old or young, or if a mean person believes it (if Karl Marx was a failure of a father does that make communism wrong?), or if the person making a claim lives the opposite of what he believes (just because Paul (in the Bible) killed Christians, does that mean that he is wrong in saying that killing is wrong?). The issue is whether it is true or false. Whether it conforms to reality or not. I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. Which falsifies rapid decay theory. Seperate dating techniques show the Earth's age to be in the 4.5 billion year range. Dozens of dataing techniques show the Earth is older than 100,000 years. This "10,000" year old earth prediction by rapid decay theory is not a stunning revelation, but rather a stunning blow to the theory. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. Scientists only have pre-conceived notions of an old earth because the evidence shows it to be true. The evidence is incompatible with a young earth. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians. Or more specifically young earth creationists. Plenty of Chrisitan theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists do not accept the rapid decay model. I wonder, can anyone other than young earth creationists be found who subscribe to this rapid decay model? <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> refer to my first response in this post. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. There is no bias like faith based bias <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There is no bias like the bias of an evolutionist. (Or do you really want to argue like this?) You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people. We are biased, so are you. How do you measure biasness? And again it doesn’t matter if we are biased or not, the truth matters. Just because I am biased doesn’t mean I am wrong. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field! Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young. This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote. I never remember him making such an inference. And if he did, that is not what we are talking about. I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory. You seem to do a great job of attacking me, and any one who I quote! I hope we can debate the ISSUES soon rather than people and groups of people. I don't care if he says that because triangles have three sides that the earth is 10,000 years old. ~Fogus

Feb 10, 2004, 09:49 pm	#224 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	I am only interested in the scientific verdict. Science does not deal in truths, only models that fit observation. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> certainly not, the rapid decay theory only conforms to prior belief that the earth is <10,000 years old. It is not supported by any other evidence and its entire premise is faulty as it cannot explain past magnetic reversals. Simply saying they were caused by a flood is not an explaination. There has to be a mechanism for how floods can cause such a thing. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Most dating techniques have upper limits of less than 4.5 billion years and cannot be expected to agree. But a number of dating techniques with higher limits do agree on this date. On the otherhand the vast majority of dating techniques show the Earth to be far older than the 10,000 years proposed by this magnetic decay theory. -Ice cores show the earth to be 100,000+ years old -the lack of naturally occuring isotopes with short halflives is only explainable given enough time for them to have decayed. -Nearly all radio-dating techniques show the earth to be older than 10,000 years. This includes carbon14 dating which has a relatively short halflife -the geological column itself is ample evidence of an old earth But I stick with radio-dating as the main evidence for an old earth </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by That is not definitive in the slightest. There are to many guesses that can be incorrect which scientists make to find the age of something with dating methods. There are MANY large discrepancies of the dating methods scientists use.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> There can be discrepancies but scientists know what is safe to date and what is not safe to date. Dating sealife by carbondating their shells is a no-no. But dating land animal remains by carbondating their bones is reliable. Even so, in general, overall, radio-dating techniques are reliable. When multiple radiodating techniques collaborate on a given date, there is very little room to argue without claiming all the dating methods were wrong but just happened to come to the same conclusion by chance. Appealing to known occasions where radiodating can be innaccurate does not wave away the majority of cases where there is absolutely no reason to assume they are innacurate, certainly not by 10,000s of magnititude. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by You put a stigma on Christians to make them look like the most biased of people.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Certainly not. My comments were aimed at creationists only and not all of them. Perhaps i should have made that more clear. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by How do you measure biasness?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> biasometers ! </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young. This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense. What fallacy? He didn’t say that in that quote. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The fallacy was of false dilema, he igored the possibility that both reversal theory and decay theory could be wrong. He set up a "one or the other" situation by implying that because reversal theory had problems this somehow strengthened decay theory. But like you said it doesn't really matter to the issue. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I am discussing the validity of the rapid decay theory and the dynamo theory.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Right, I couldn't care less what the dynamo theory is or how it bears out, like I said it is not a dilema between rapid decay and dynamo. Wile was promoting rapid decay and I can see it doesn't work in several areas. Theories have to be supported by observations, the more the better. In fact I would say both rapid decay and reversal should be hypothesis, but whatever. In the case of rapid decay theory it proposes an earth <10,000 years old but there are a number of major observations that contradict. For example the ice-cores, radio-dating, etc. Also I don't know that there isn't one, but I noticed that Wile never explained how rapid decay theory actually explains magnetic reversals. I realise he mentioned catastrophies and especially a flood as being causes for magnetic pole reversal. But is there even a mechanism for a flood to be able to reverse the earths magnetic poles?

Feb 10, 2004, 10:19 pm	#225 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by fogus Therefore you only interprete science to fit the bible version of creation and history. I think I agree with you on this but it depends on what you mean “interpret”. I do not manipulate numbers, or stay ignorant about evolutionary issues. I do believe that no data cannot fit the thousands of years time scale that the Bible suggests. I didn’t know that AiG was trying to squeeze billions of years into thousands. I don't think that they think this is necessary. They believe in thousands of years, which fits the bibles thousands of years fine (no squeeze necessary).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> If you base your belief strictly on the bible and do not bring science into the arguement then thousands of years is what the bible says and the debate ends, no problem. You believe the bible is literal and I believe that science provides the best answer for evolution and the history of existence. But if you bring science into the arguement as AIG does then there is grounds for debate and the squeeze is on. AIG definitely trys to use scientific data to provide proof for the biblical version of the history of existence. The recent article on the problem of the speed of light, time and the vast distances between the galaxies and stars is an important example. AIG used concepts like 'time dilation' and 'event horizon' to argue that the vast distances and the billions of years of time required to explain what we observe in the universe is not billions of years and great distances between objects in space, but thousands of years and much shorter distances between the stars and galaxies, and much slower rotation speeds of the galaxies. This is a squeeze of unbelievable dimensions, based on the known concepts of physics and all sciences. It is a hoplessly useless arguement and manipulation of data in an incomprehensible way. You may not manipulat data, but you often quote AIG who use more blue smoke and mirrors than the circus. You asked in a previous post if science recognizes and has records of their mistakes, failures and things like unresolved problems. Yes and the list is long. Einstein himself lamented over his misconceptions and mistakes that plagued his work. There are many records of of failures and mistakes of the past. The Piltdown man and other false information from fossils used in the past is well documented and recognized. Recently an important paleontologist in Japan and geologist in India acknowledged that they falsified evidence after other research uncovered inconsistencies in their work. This is the way of science. We fully acknowledge our mistakes and the system is designed to uncover these problems over time, like the instance of the false evidence presented by the Japanese and Indian scientists. When the Smithsonain Institute realized that they had perchased a bogus fossil of a primative bird/dinosaur they admited it. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 11, 2004, 01:09 am	#227 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by fogus Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory. This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise. I put forward that the rapid decay conforms to reality more closely than the dynamo thory. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> The problem with rapid decay is that it is not a legitamate theory or a view of the nature of the history of the magnetic field because it is only based on recent measurements of the fluctuations in the magnetic field. The 'Creation Science' advocates simply latched onto it because it showed a rapid change. Unfortunately there is not enough direct long term 'direct measurements' that would fit the requirements of the 'Creation Science' advocates to confirm the 'young or old earth' view. But if you correlate these direct measurements with the 'indirect measurements' which the geologists use the data definitely fits the cyclic pattern of changes in the magnetic field over millions of years. How can a few years data concerning the changes in the strength of the electric field be used to draw any conclusions of the long term fate of the electric field? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I am not sure how a few years data would make geologists uneasy. I am a geologist and a few years data on anything couldn't make me uneasy. </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by I contest the statement that the earth is 4.5 billion years old. Most dating techniques show an earth which is far younger than 4.5 billion years. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What dating methods show the earth is far younger? </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Preconcieved notions? There isn't any evidence for a world flood. Where do you get that much water? The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 10, 2004, 07:38 pm	#221 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	Geologists that believe in Noah's Flood, however, know that such an event did happen. Rapid decay theorists say that an event such as Noah's Flood explains these magnetic field reversals in the context of their theory. This is religio-political interferance of science at its worst. The only reason a handful of people accept rapid decay theory is because their religious beliefs do not allow them to believe otherwise. The other consequence makes even more geologists uneasy. If you use the rapid decay theory to predict what the magnetic field was like in earth's past, you find out that the earth had to have been formed less than 10,000 years ago. Which falsifies rapid decay theory. Seperate dating techniques show the Earth's age to be in the 4.5 billion year range. Dozens of dataing techniques show the Earth is older than 100,000 years. This "10,000" year old earth prediction by rapid decay theory is not a stunning revelation, but rather a stunning blow to the theory. Scientists whose preconceived notions rule out Noah's Flood and a young earth refuse to believe the most scientifically valid theory for the earth's magnetic field. Scientists only have pre-conceived notions of an old earth because the evidence shows it to be true. The evidence is incompatible with a young earth. and thus most of the scientists who believe the rapid decay model are Bible-believing Christians. Or more specifically young earth creationists. Plenty of Chrisitan theistic evolutionists and old earth creationists do not accept the rapid decay model. I wonder, can anyone other than young earth creationists be found who subscribe to this rapid decay model? This brings me to one of the most important points you will ever learn when it comes to science: There is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. There is no bias like faith based bias Instead, they rely on a theory that has been demonstrated to go against one of the major observables related to a planet's magnetic field! Dr. Jay L. Wile is commiting a fallacy in his argument by claiming that because the dynamo theory is not bullet-proof, the earth is young. This is not a "my theory or yours" situation, both can be wrong and regardless of the shortfalls of the dynamo theory, the rapid decay theory is far worse because one of its consequences is a young earth, which disagrees with tons of evidence and possibly common sense.

Feb 11, 2004, 12:06 am	#226 (permalink) (top)
takes12no1 Sedimentary Rock Posts: 3	If God is as smart as his believers claim he is, then instead of creating animals types one by one, he probably would have designed a simple algorithm(evolution-natural selection-sexual selection) that given enough time, which he really would not care about, considering how long his lifespan is supposed to be, would generate the results he wanted (humans). Linguist have proven contradictions in the bible, which points to the coruption of Gods word by man. Therefore I would advise against attesting that the corrupted article is in fact God's word (assuming we could figure out which version to choose) and figuring that the earth is around 6000 rotations around the sun old. He might get pissed, and he's pretty powerful. I think he's pretty much checking us out thinking, "Why are they hashing out this stuff, when they should be loving and helping each other, and following my sons' example. Besides, I never said how I made everything."

Feb 11, 2004, 09:04 pm	#228 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	damnrad: The laws of physics (gravity) are as real as your ass. They are measurable and consistant. That is all that counts - all else is imagination, dreams, and wishful thinking. Unfortunately we are able to self-actualize ourselves and "see" the universe through eyes that have evolved by sheer will. If that is not god - and the only way he/she/it/we can "see" our creation - what is? What is the definition of is? Why should we care - because we are god - that's why. That's our choice - good god - or bad god.

Feb 12, 2004, 04:19 pm	#229 (permalink) (top)
bmaestro Molten Ash Posts: 61	before anyone brings up the "irreducable complexity" of the eye as a proof of intention in creation, and a falacy of evolution, let me refute that. the human eye has optic nerves that go over the rods and cones in the back of our eyeballs. if god had created us in his image, as the bible explains, why did he give us eyes with these things that obscure our vision, while giving a squid an eye with optic nerves that don't get in the way of rods and cones? Furthermore, the eye isn't irreducibly complex. By plugging in physical equations for optics, and developing an algorithm (a program/model that searches for the best possible solution, i.e. best focus and definition being output), starting with a simple sheet of light-sensitive material, the computer turns out a spherical shape, with a lens in front to focus light just right. A computer can do it with math in a relatively short time. Why couldn't nature (which selects for the best eyes, plus or minus some physical constraints) do the same over millions of years? There are no irreducibly complex organs, its just that the scope of evolution is misunderstood. billions of years is far beyond what we can imagine, and in that time, using the simple laws of nature and selecting for the best possible, we get what we have right now. megadiversity. every animal has some shortcomings that are just a product of some tendon getting stuck in the way or whatever, and through this byproducts of evolution, you can even track the course of evolution. Nothings perfect. We have big brains and abstract thought (therefore, science, technology, society, language) because it affected mate choice. Squids have better vision than us because they didn't have the same physical constraints worked into the evolution of their eye. Any questions? -b

Feb 12, 2004, 07:30 pm	#230 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) damnrad: The laws of physics (gravity) are as real as your ass. They are measurable and consistant. That is all that counts - all else is imagination, dreams, and wishful thinking. Unfortunately we are able to self-actualize ourselves and "see" the universe through eyes that have evolved by sheer will. If that is not god - and the only way he/she/it/we can "see" our creation - what is? What is the definition of is? Why should we care - because we are god - that's why. That's our choice - good god - or bad god.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Gravity is very real in effects, but not absolutely measurable or constant in the universe. That is one of the main puzzles now facing cosmologists and pyhsics. It would solve a lot of the problems if it was absolutely constant and measurable. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 13, 2004, 09:07 pm	#231 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	At least it is somethig tangible (if invisible) god is just imagination. makeshiftpatriot has it right( and it is a pleasure to read good writing). I did not mean to give the eye any meaning other than a poetic one. The "eye" as the proof of the intention of creation is a sweet thought - but very egocentric. Random nothing is easier to swallow.

Feb 13, 2004, 09:49 pm	#232 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (PeterAngelo,) At least it is somethig tangible (if invisible) god is just imagination. makeshiftpatriot has it right( and it is a pleasure to read good writing). I did not mean to give the eye any meaning other than a poetic one. The "eye" as the proof of the intention of creation is a sweet thought - but very egocentric. Random nothing is easier to swallow.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Actually scientist consider gravity only tangible in effects. Those that believe in God consider God tangible in effects. Far more is known today about the progressive development of organs from simple forms to the complex, like the eye, for this to be significant issue. The 'too complex' view of 'Creation Science' advocates is an example of how far behind they are in light of today's knowledge of evolution. I do notice that our friends of the 'Creation Science' persuasion are silent lately and have not responded to the posts from the evolution advocates. I know jpapadpapa is having a baby, but I don't think that is reason fogus is not responding. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 13, 2004, 10:47 pm	#233 (permalink) (top)
sdcinder Molten Ash Location: South Dakota Posts: 26	Religion and creationism and evolution. Well, this is an interesting one. I will admit that I have not read the past 15 pages of debate. Even in creationism there are two differing opinions: catastrophism and slow evolution. I myself am a catastraphist. God spoke and BANG it happened. Suddenly there was a flood and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Certainly don't have to be a CHRISTian to believe that one, there is a group in the Philistines I believe that are so deeply involved with the Great Flood that they still build their houses in the shape of boats in honor of their version of Noah. That would validate the significance of the Flood for sure since they are on the opposite side of the world as to where Noah was supposed to be from. I am thoroughly of the mind that we were created by the Creator of everything. I do not believe that we evolved from apes, from monkeys, from fish, from a pond full of muck. Nope, can't buy that either. Within species? Yes, certainly. I think I hit on this topic in the religion forum though. Someone said that they had never heard the arguement of an amphibian crossing with a mammal and yet in the same breath, I assume, they believe that we have all evolved from primordial soup. Wouldn't that indicate that we were all amphibians? They how in the world did we get all this hair and warm blood??? Oh, yes, one more thing about amphibians, some of them are able to change sex if there are too many of one sex in the area. I am certain that we cannot do that just by shear will of our brain or genetic make-up. I could not decide today that I am going to become male and like women... LOL! Nope, I am quite happy being a woman. C. Bogue "There's room for all God's creatures, right next to the fried taters!"

Feb 13, 2004, 11:10 pm	#234 (permalink) (top)
Matthew Cromer Sedimentary Rock Location: Raleigh, NC Posts: 10	What are we supposed to debate here? The fact that some kind of evolution and speciation occurs and is the origin of the life we see, or whether the neo darwinian synthesis is in itself an adequate explanation for the evolution and speciation we see? I don't expect there is going to be much of interest in talking about "Creation Science" which is not compatible with science.

Feb 14, 2004, 04:47 am	#235 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Matthew Cromer,) What are we supposed to debate here? The fact that some kind of evolution and speciation occurs and is the origin of the life we see, or whether the neo darwinian synthesis is in itself an adequate explanation for the evolution and speciation we see? I don't expect there is going to be much of interest in talking about "Creation Science" which is not compatible with science.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> 'Creation Science' is the main opposing view to evolution in the debate. Those that believe in 'Creation Science' believe it is a science. The issue whether God created existence in the way scientists generally see the universe evolving from some point billions of years ago in time we now call the 'Big Bang' or these events occured without the 'Divine Cause' is a side issue, but the substance for a debate is weak, because the origins are largely unknown. It is simply issue of belief. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 14, 2004, 05:12 am	#236 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (sdcinder,) Religion and creationism and evolution. Well, this is an interesting one. I will admit that I have not read the past 15 pages of debate. Even in creationism there are two differing opinions: catastrophism and slow evolution. I myself am a catastraphist. God spoke and BANG it happened. Suddenly there was a flood and it rained for 40 days and 40 nights. Certainly don't have to be a CHRISTian to believe that one, there is a group in the Philistines I believe that are so deeply involved with the Great Flood that they still build their houses in the shape of boats in honor of their version of Noah. That would validate the significance of the Flood for sure since they are on the opposite side of the world as to where Noah was supposed to be from. I am thoroughly of the mind that we were created by the Creator of everything. I do not believe that we evolved from apes, from monkeys, from fish, from a pond full of muck. Nope, can't buy that either. Within species? Yes, certainly. I think I hit on this topic in the religion forum though. Someone said that they had never heard the arguement of an amphibian crossing with a mammal and yet in the same breath, I assume, they believe that we have all evolved from primordial soup. Wouldn't that indicate that we were all amphibians? They how in the world did we get all this hair and warm blood??? Oh, yes, one more thing about amphibians, some of them are able to change sex if there are too many of one sex in the area. I am certain that we cannot do that just by shear will of our brain or genetic make-up. I could not decide today that I am going to become male and like women... LOL! Nope, I am quite happy being a woman.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Are you a catastraphist by faith or do you support 'Creation Science'? I believe there are two potentially different views. The faith catastraphist believes existence was created literally as it is described in the Bible and the evidence that science claims for evolution and billions of years of history was created as is. Those that support the 'Creation Science' view believe the scientific evidence supports the short time biblical view of creation. There is nothing in the evolution view that says amphibians cross with mammals and humans descended monkeys or apes. As to sex it is not uncommon for humans to be born with both male and female traits and some people are born apparently very female, but become male as they mature. The evolution from a pond full of muck is not exactly how science views the beginnings of life. Technically in both versions animals and humans come from the same source, the earth, therefore we are all related. What is wrong with the evolutionary model of the relationship between all life on earth? Are the animals so offensive to us we don't want to claim kinship? I think humans might likewise be offensive to animals that they wouldn't want to claim kinship. In our history humans have been more offensive than the animals. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 14, 2004, 10:40 am	#237 (permalink) (top)
ruiner Igneous Magma Posts: 180	"'Creation Science' is the main opposing view to evolution in the debate" But this is like Alchemy being the main opposing view to Chemistry Does that give it any more credibility? no

Feb 14, 2004, 10:51 am	#238 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (ruiner,) "'Creation Science' is the main opposing view to evolution in the debate" But this is like Alchemy being the main opposing view to Chemistry Does that give it any more credibility? no<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No! Of course not, but the President, more than a third of Congress and a large percentage of the American people believe in one form of 'Creation Science' that is in basic conflict with the foundatin of today's science and that makes it an important debate topic. Alchemy lives! So does Astrology and other foolish urban myths. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 14, 2004, 11:36 am	#239 (permalink) (top)
percivale Sedimentary Rock Posts: 17	There is a place to teach religious mythology. It's called church. There's also a place to teach science. It's called a science class. It's all well and good to believe in a non-scientific mythology (I have a few such beliefs myself), but to say that it is somehow has the same impartial credibility as evolution, just doesn't hold water. As far as "Christian Science" goes, there are a great many christians who have a scientific education, and have no trouble integrating the study of evolution into their beliefs. In fact, MOST "Creationists" are actually "Theistic Evolutionists," believing that the hand of "god" is what drives and directs the scientifically observable facts of evolution. Amongst the "common folk" of the US, the statistics of belief break down something like this... Creationists - 44% Theistic Evolutionists - 39% Natualistic Evolutionists - 10% Other - 07% However, among "scientists," the breakdown is significantly different... Creationists - 05% Theistic Evolutionists - 40% Natualistic Evolutionists - 55% "The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc." http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm All that one has to do is to realize that the majority of religious creation myths where written in ancinet times, and with an ancient's understanding of the world around them. And, "pure" mythlogical creationism has no more credibility than "the earth is flat," or "the sun revolves around the earth," or that dark skinned people are that way because they are "cursed with the mark of Ham." It is only the most radical fringe of religious zealots that advance the purely mythological version of the origin of our species. It is completely possible to be a rational person, driven by reason AND faith. I know I am. percivale <span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'><span style='color:purple'>It is better to be hated for who you are, than loved for who you are not. ...Andre Gide</span></span>

Feb 14, 2004, 07:26 pm	#240 (permalink) (top)
PeterAngelo Igneous Magma Posts: 169	I think we could all agree that we are here. To get along would be possible if we cared. Does being able to contemplate ones own death have any purpose other than torture? Are we in HELL? A life is a story that ends with ones death. The last page would be an interesting read. I always read the last page of a book to see how the protagonist got there - as I read. I live my life that way too. I am conscious of "acting" every moment of every day. I have choreographed my life and surroundings in a way that has me very comfortable and self satisfied at the end of my life. I am sixty and am not afraid of death. I have what I always wanted - a beautiful family that loves and supports each other - a beachfront condo with no mortgages, car payments, or interest on loans. I have time to do what I want - and have since I was 45. The play will end with my death - but I plan to do that myself (barring an unforseen truck). Either heroin or insulin - both work well and fast. When I am not healthy enough to have fun my family knows I will go easy. That is a successful life to me. I made it happen with will - effort - education - experiance - and the belief in the ability to "create" ones own world by will. We are all god until we die. I am a good god who makes great children 5 boys, I girl, 4 grand-children. I fulfilled the prime directive - with great pleasure. Gravity has effects - so does this little god. I have TEN angels so far who surround and protect me. I truly do feel like god when I see them smile with a sparkle in their eyes.