The question even Darwin avoided

The Sydney Morning Herald ^ | 12/22/05 | Paul Davies

[expatpat]

Today scientists have a good idea of how matter originated in the Big Bang

Yes and No. In one sense, they know that matter was generated from a huge burst of gamma radiation, but noone knows what created that gamma burst. The best description we have is "Let there be light!" (gammas are quanta of EM radiation, like light but just a (lot) shorter wavelength)

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Those are my thoughts exactly about Lady Hope...what better witness could there be for any evangelizer, than to claim that 'she', got that bad old Charles Darwin to recant, and 'she' got him back to religion...

And we all know that no evangelist would use the name of God to increase the size of their bank accounts or enhance their reputation... </sarcasm>

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

What evidence did anyone produce that either proved or refuted creationism, evolution or ID? The only physical evidence was an ill-written textbook.

This trial wasn't about proving or refuting either.

The trial was about whether ID could be taught as a scientifically valid alternative to evolution.

What the trial did prove was that ID is is repackaged creation science, which is repackaged creationism and the judge ruled that as such, ID could not be taught as science in a public school.

The validity of the underlying 'theories' were not on trial.

FWIW, you're incorrect when you write that the book "Of Pandas and People" was the only piece of physical evidence.

[ReignOfError]

Saying that God does not meddle is not the same as saying God is irrelevant.

Yes, it is. If God does not take an active role in observable phenomena, his existence or non-existence is not relevant.

Is it science to claim an answer where there is none, or none testable?

Stating that the existence of God is irrelevant to science is the exact opposite of "claim[ing] an answer"; it is an admission that the existence of God is a question that science cannot answer and should not consider.

[andysandmikesmom]

That game of using the name of God to increase the bank account is a game that is still today, thriving...

Just turn onto TBN(Trinity Broadcasting Network, for those who dont know)...they seem to get into the telethon mode quite regularly...and the money streams in...

I have no objection at all to churches and ministries collecting money, to support their ministries and the staff that entails...but when they are up on TV, jumping around, hollering through the channel about how you can be 'blessed' only if you donate to them(make your SEED BLESSING now!!!!), then they are nothing but snakeoil salesmen to me...better for a person to go to their local church, ,and support it financially, than to send your money off to some TV preacher, and never, ever know if you money will be used in true religious pursuits, or will it be used to support some of these evangelizers in a style, that looms way above what the average person could even imagine...Local support for local churches, where one can watch their money in action, is what I see as the best way...

By the way, I like your screenname, 'Ol'Dan Tucker'...I remember when watching 'Little House on the Prairie', Mr. Edwards would always sing that song...Mr. Edwards could often be a mess, but he had a good heart, and was a fine singer of songs...

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

That game of using the name of God to increase the bank account is a game that is still today, thriving...

Yup.

Just turn onto TBN(Trinity Broadcasting Network, for those who dont know)...they seem to get into the telethon mode quite regularly...and the money streams in...

There's lots of funny stories surrounding the Crouches. Like homosexual lovers receiving silence settlements, etc. God's people, for sure.

By the way, I like your screenname, 'Ol'Dan Tucker'...I remember when watching 'Little House on the Prairie', Mr. Edwards would always sing that song...Mr. Edwards could often be a mess, but he had a good heart, and was a fine singer of songs.

Thanks. I liked LHotP, too. I never watched it regularly, but did enjoy it when I did watch it. Highway to Heaven, too.

[andysandmikesmom]

I just recently heard about that story about Paul Crouch...sigh, but as is typical when this sort of thing happens, their supporters just use euphemisms, such as they 'went astray', and then excuse them, and they often continue on...and so it goes...

I never did watch Highway to Heaven, ,for whatever reason...I dont watch a whole lot of TV, so that may explain it...often I have to catch up on a lot of good TV series, years after the fact on DVD, or on some channels that rerun them...but I always like Michael Landon and Victor French as actors...I always found their performances to be good and credible(I have always had a soft spot for Victor French, he looked like a younger version of my dad)...sorry that they are both gone now...

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

1. The plural is viruses, not virii.

2. Even the simplest virus has the ability to adapt. This is what makes them indescribably complex.

2. If they're so simple, let's see you create one. I'll even let you use everything that is already in existence (as opposed to starting from nothing). However, I don't want you to just "breed" two viruses, I want a completely new one.

[Tribune7]

Yes, it is. If God does not take an active role in observable phenomena, his existence or non-existence is not relevant.

And very little is observable in the claim that cells from a single source evolved by unknown but natural means into man and a mushroom. Why would you want it taught that this occurred?

[Elsie]

E=mc²

 

^{so likewise...}

 

m=c²/E

 

---

---

 

Now the question becomes:

 

From WHERE did the energy come that formed all the MASS we see around us?

[Elsie]

^

above

Today scientists have a good idea of how matter originated in the Big Bang ...

[Elsie]

Chief editor and censor speaks:

Thanks for the ping, but this isn't for the evolution list.

[Elsie]

There ya go!

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

One of the most important but most little-discussed reasons for Darwin's unwillingness to address this problem is this issue:

If there was a "primordial soup" in which a collection of molecules "spontaneously formed life," what did the first cell of life consume?

One of the most rock-solid qualifications we have for what constitutes "life" is that all life forms must consume organic matter in order to survive. No living thing that we know of can survive by eating sand or stone, etc.

Did the earliest life forms not need to consume organic matter? And, if so, how did we "evolve" to need to consume organic matter? Wouldn't it be a far greater advantage in 'survival of the fittest,' in adaptating to changes in environment, not to need to eat? If this is the case, then this orgin-of-life theory would conflict with Darwin's theory of evolution. That is, we'd have to believe that one of the strongest survival traits known to life existed only for the first generation and then suddenly disappeared (devolved) in every generation since.

And don't bother going on about the quasi-life forms (half alive, half inorganic) forms emitting light at the bottom of the ocean. The least trace of organic, biological function is still life, even Democrats.

[Tribune7]

Well, the anti-IDers say the bacterial flagellum evolved. What is the test for this? The specific history of any feature may never be known.

Are you saying it's not testable or are you saying it is testable we just don't know what the test is?

[Ghost of Philip Marlowe]

"It simply means that the existence of an intelligent designer is not a question that science can address."

I respectfully disagree. If we can posit that there may be a 'designer' we can then analyze 'the design.' The design and the purpose of design can be explored as scientifically as evolution, it's simply more of a study in physics than in anthropology.

[Coyoteman]

b>How exactly would you prove that the world wasn't created yesterday?

Carbon dating?

Carbon dating has trouble with extremely young samples because of the effects of the atomic testing.

Also the range (± or plus/minus if the symbol does not come through collectly) can eat you up quickly. The date is usually figured at two sigma or twice the range in either direction; thus a date of 100 ± 50 has a range of 200 years at the two sigma (95% confidence) level. Once you get a few hundred years old, or if you run lots of samples, this can be less of a problem.

[LiteKeeper]

YEC SPOTREP - good article. The origin of information continues to be the Achille's Heel of Evolution. Only one known source of information - a Mind. Self-organizing chemicals cannot create information - information on the DNA necessary for replication and life processes!

[ReignOfError]

Yes, it is. If God does not take an active role in observable phenomena, his existence or non-existence is not relevant.

And very little is observable in the claim that cells from a single source evolved by unknown but natural means into man and a mushroom. Why would you want it taught that this occurred?

I wouldn't. There is strong and abundant evidence for the mechanism of evolution, but scant evidence on the origins of all life. Students should be taught a couple of the leading hypotheses, with the bottom line that we just don't know.

[adiaireton8]

Can't you see that if my clocks were here 2 days ago, that they cannot have been created yesterday?

Initially you claimed "I CAN scientifically prove that creation didn't happen yesterday". Now, to prove scientifically that the world was not created yesterday, you claim that your clocks were here 2 days ago. But, that begs the question, How do you scientifically prove that your clocks were here 2 days ago? If you reply, "Because my clocks were here 3 days ago", you are led to a regress that undermines the epistemological foundation of your initial claim.

My point is not so play games, but only to point out the limitations of positivistic science, limitations which are so often ignored and forgotten by scientists.

-A8