posted on April 16, 2001 02:03:37 PM new
The Pope made mention, but 'other' Christians have too before the Pope.
Its called Creation Sceince, and some will still argue that.
I have my own beliefs, you have yours, they have theirs. Oh and krs has his
Reading these boards lends one's thoughts to the concept, apparently some are higher up the scale of evolution than others.
Gee you must mean krs huh?
(On the 'higher scale of evolution' I do mean! )
posted on April 16, 2001 02:18:49 PM new
Well, everybody came from somewhere, I suppose ...
I came from Wisconsin ...
I hope I've evolved, at least a little bit ...
But since I'm an aspiring Druid, the rest of the debate doesn't interest me much (hey don't knock it - if I make the grade, I get to run naked in the woods ...)
Seriously, I agree with Rawbunzel ... all these theories can coexist, if you let them ... nobody 'really' knows the answers, in spite of what they may tell you ...
posted on April 16, 2001 02:31:38 PM new
Where did you cut and paste this bit of nonsense from, jlpiece? If it really is your words, your own unique thoughts, then I'd like to challenge them:
>"Life of any kind is only possible in a physical universe which has physical constants such as ours."
Please supply proofs of tests you have done that support this claim.
>"If any of physical constants like the speed of light, the mass of an electron, the gravitational and nuclear force constants were even slightly tampered with, we could not have molecules which form the basis of physical life."
Scientifically not true. Concider that the Earth's gravitational field warps the curvature of Space around us, causing time on a clock on Earth to travel differently than a similar clock traveling in space free of our gravitational field. Therefore, established constants do not always apply, because mitigating factors alter events. And yet, somehow, we exist after all ... hmm.
>"If the earth was a little closer to the Sun, or a little further away, life could not exist here."
Obviously you do not know much about Life Sciences, jlpiece, or you would know that certain organisms can live in colder environments where water would freeze, such as in liquid Methane or Ammonia. Conversely, they have discovered bacteria that lives inside of the hot, operating Nuclear Furnace of nuclear power reactors. Therefore, life could easily exist on such hot planets as Mercury and Venus. Ergo: life would easily exist here between the orbit of Mercury and say, that of Saturn. That statment that you made is without merit. I submit that your whole arguement is without merit. Are you able to challange my commentary and defend your "thoughts"?
posted on April 16, 2001 04:12:07 PM newddicffe, thanks for posting that bit of info from the CRI.
>"Theistic evolutionists claim that God created man by evolutionary processes"
I can't claim to be a "theistic evolutionist" then, because I make no such declaration. I doubt that many on here who agree that Evolution and God go hand-in-hand could be called that either, simply because we are not trying to presume what God has done.
The heart of the problem with CRI's arguments is that it presumes that the Christian Holy Bible KJV is the word-for-word exact translation of the complete amount of information God has wanted to let us know about. For them, the Holy Bible KJV is the Beginning, the Middle, and the End of the story.
But the Bible tells us that there were many prophets who tried to reveal the words and workings of God, not just Jesus. And no where in the Holy Bible does it state that Jesus was the last of the prophets! Therefore, the information contained within the Holy Bible can be updated by new prophets.
Today's prophets seem to include people like Albert Einstein, Sir Isaac Newton, Neil Bors, Stephen Hawkings, and many others. Had the Scientific Method been around 3,000 to 2,000 years ago, I think that the Holy Bible would report the discovery of Nuclear Physics by prophets as well.
So I believe that it is a fallacy to say that Science, which is the understanding of How God Does It, is somehow wrong at all points: certainly, Science will not be disproved by mere arguments alone. Science is a rational approach to discovering for ourselves how God works that nearly anyone can take advantage of: no need to wander the desert for long periods of time! And if we are to allow Science to show us how God has done things in the past and is doing them now, then we should not presume to know exactly how God created Humanity until we have more evidence.
BTW: Evolution does not state that we came from Apes or Monkeys! It is only the IGNORANT who make such claims. What current Evolution states is that both Apes and Humans have a common ancestor; that at some point in evolution, Apes were split off the "tree" so to speak and we went the other way. It is totally plausible to me that God made Man, and then after a while had an after-thought and said: Hey! Wouldn't it be neat if I included Apes? Since Man is the closest to Apes, let's split off a bit of DNA and mess around with it -- like so! And then he said: Whoops! Those Apes look too much like Humans, so let me adjust Man just a bit this way -- then That! There! Now we have the common ancestor!
The presence of the universe and life in it neither proves nor disproves the existence of god.
No life process violates the second law of thermodynamics.
The genetic code does not prove divine creation.
The incompleteness of our knowledge of the workings of life processes does not prove divine creation.
The incompleteness of our knowledge of how life originated and evolved does not prove divine creation.
The theories of evolution are not philosophy, though they are the product one.
Cosmological theories, physical constants, and the age of the universe do not prove divine creation.
Evolutionary theory does not demand spontaneous creation of e-coli from random assosciation of base chemicals.
Evolution does not imply that everything is building itself up out of nothing into increasingly complex forms.
Evolution does not require support for nazism, racism nor communism.
Morality does not require the existence of a divine creator.
Extreme materialism is not the only alternative to superstitious religion.
Science cannot prove nor disprove the existence of god.
The scientific method requires that theories be judged on the basis consistency with observed facts.
Creationism requires that observations be discounted on the basis of narrow interpretations of "divine scripture".
"Creation science" is not science.
Theists ignore evidence that doesn't fit into their world view. If the a believer assumes that the bible can give all the answers, he is also assuming that physical observation is insignificant compared to the word of God. It is only an assumption though. No proof has been offered. Contradictory evidence is then dismissed because he thinks he already knows the answer. Its called a closed mind. The lack of evidence or even plausibility is no problem.
posted on April 16, 2001 06:00:07 PM new
figmente - I understood everything up to the point where you said Extreme materialism is not the only alternative to superstitious religion. I'm just not sure what this means.........
The old, debunked creationist objection regarding the Second Law of Thermodynamics is, well, just that-- an old, debunked objection. This is one of those areas where creationists have an easy time fooling people, because the topic is so scientifically complex and misunderstood, and outside most people's experience. For those reasons, creationists still make wide use of it. It sounds awfully scientific, with complicated terminology and deep notions. But it is being misused, and most creation supporters can't even explain what it means.
The creationist objection of evolution based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics is built upon an incorrect understanding of the Law. The earth is not a closed system. Neither is the solar system. The universe apparently is, but the 2nd Law allows for the transference of energy from one part of a closed system to another. But even more importantly, none of the processes which bring about evolution (birth, death, genetic mutation) violate the second law- in fact they are observed all the time, aren't they?
Evolution does not violate the Second Law of Thermodynamics-- nothing does.
It is true that you can't build a machine that produces more energy than you put into it, and that energy tends to dissipate. But the addition of external energy or the transfer of energy from one part of a system to another can suspend this process of energy dissipation.
Bological systems use external energy to grow. DNA, by way of chemical processes, can grow more complex over time. The earth, as a system, receives energy from space in the form of sunlight and cosmic gamma radiation, and therefore can increase in complexity as long as this energy continues to enter the earth's system.
None of the processes which are responsible for evolution (birth, death and genetic variation) violate any scientific laws. Also, scientific laws are not like "laws" we are
familiar with in everyday life that must not be broken. A scientific law is simply a human description of a physical phenomenon.
On the large scale, it's correct that the universe will tend toward chaos and disorder. It is also true that "pockets" within a closed system can exchange energy, thereby
causing temporary increases in order. In other words, heat can travel from one part of a closed system to another part. One such area is our solar system.
According to their own understandings of the second law of thermodynamics, they can't provide scientific evidence or inference why their own hypotheses do not violate the second law.
The 2LoT is one of the biggest anti-evolutionist smokescreens, in my opinion. It is nothing. Birth does not violate the second law. Death does not, and neither does genetic variation. These three events are what cause evolution to happen. It is a baseless objection-- one they use to cause doubt and confusion in the non-scientific public. They're trying to sway the fence-sitters, as well as reassure their followers.
Claims regarding Thermodynamics must be made as mathematical expressions, not metaphors. To my knowledge, anti-evolutionists have not provided any mathematical calculations as to exactly why birth, death and genetic variation violate the second law of thermodynamics.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics is applicable to the Earth and the biosphere, but what the public needs to understand is that creationists apply it wrongly. The second law restricts possible changes in entropy when a system makes the transition from one state to another. It requires that the initial state, as well as the end state, both be in thermodynamic equilibrium, and that throughout the transition the system must be thermodynamically isolated. The Earth and biosphere do not satisfy any of these conditions,hence the conclusion is that the Second Law does not apply.
The pursuit of non-equilibrium thermodynamics is the proper tool for analyzing the thermodynamic behavior of the Earth and biosphere, but is never used by creationists. It includes an analogous application of the Second Law which which describes the overall non-equilibrium system as a collection of sub-systems, each of which is in thermodynamic equilibrium, but not isolated. The analysis then centers on identifying the sub systems that are sources or sinks of entropy, and the entropy and energy flow
between sub-systems. Obviously, this is an enormous task if applied to the Earth and biosphere, and no wonder if creationists are daunted by the magnitude of effort required. Nevertheless, it is the only proper way to describe the thermodynamic behavior of the biosphere during evolution.
Of course, the other major cerationist mistakes are the assumption that entropy and order/disorder are strictly analogous (they are not), and that evolution moves from
disorder to order, which has yet to be demonstrated.
posted on April 17, 2001 07:14:45 AM newIt's critics, who claimed it to be filled with forgery, fiction, and unfulfilled promises, are finding that the difficulties lie with themselves, and not the Bible. Greater and more careful scholarship has shown that apparent contradictions were caused by incorrect translations rather than divine inconsistencies. It was man and not the Bible that needed correcting. It is the blueprint of the Master Architect.
Billy Graham
posted on April 17, 2001 07:28:58 AM new
krs, Where is the picture you posted awhile back. That was a side by side comparision of Bush and Chimp, which clearly illustrates the kinship between man and apes.
