Posted on 02/18/2002 4:59:53 AM PST by cracker
Genuine, impartial observations made to understand the physical world are just that...observations. Humans unfortunately can and do foster individual agendas, from both sides of the debate. I am comfortable supporting impartial observations and interpretations of both Scripture and the physical realm, but I most definitely do not support the use of same in attacking either camp.
Now, as for the two whale-critters in there, if one were to actually research cetacian evolution (something I understand is against your religion/programming), one would see these critters bear a strong resemblance to more whale-like aquatic critters, who bear a strong resemblance to more recent, even more whale-like aquatic critters, who bear a really strong resemblance to modern whales. Now, the fossils of these two critters are very much older than the fossils of any of the later critters that resemble them (following so far? If not, get your programmer to explain the big words). And, these fossils have legs. Now, from the fossil matrix (stuff around the fossil), and the shape and location of the appendages, these fossils were quite evidently semi-aquatic (that means they spent time on both land and in the water). The fossils that resemble them and come later in the fossil record (the fossils don't appear side-by-side, but in distinct layers in the rocks) are much more aquatic (live in the water). Now, all these fossils from the land critters to modern whales can be put into a sequence and paleontologists (the, what you would call "spawn of Satan" folks that study fossils) can trace changes in anatomy over time (the movement of the nostrils farther and farther back on the head, the gradual disappearance of the hind legs and the changes to the front legs and tail, etc.). Now, they can draw one of two conclusions:
1) Each of the younger fossils represents a much more aquatically-adapted descendant of one of the older species.
2) God pops in every now and then to zap a new species into existence.
Now, I understand the illustrated Bible your programmer input into you has pictures of God zapping critters into existence (I know mine does), and I know you are incapable of moving beyond your programming, being a simple looping algorythm and not a full-blown AI, so I don't expect any of this will affect any discussion with you in the least.
I know, I know:
"Slime, slime, slime, slime. Wonderful slime! Glorious slime!"
A link proves nothing. It is the content that may or may not give the proof. I can give a hundred links against evolution, but I would not call that proof and I would not spam this site in such a manner.
As I said to you in response to that post (my post#261) - choose the one link which you think offers the strongest proof of evolution and we will discuss it.
Electrical activity is not consciousness. Light bulbs have no consciousness. People that are unconscious or in a long coma still have electrical activity. The electrical activity may be a sign of life, but it certainly is not a sign of consciousness.
Because God would seem more the vicious jokester for writing the book of Genesis and describing the creation the way He did if He really made the universe over 15 billion years through evolution. There are many Christians who have submitted to pop science and believe that the universe must be old. If we see starlight from 10 billion light years away then the universe simply must be 10+ billion years old.
These people feel that God is a trickster for saying the universe is young but making it look old. They fail to consider that when God made Adam He made him an adult. Scully would swear that Adam was 25ish years old 2 seconds after God brought the dust together and made him.
There are lies, damned lies, and statistics. Statistics can be used to prove anything. For instance, if last year one person died from a fatal computer keyboard explosion and this year two people suffered that fate, you could truthfully trumpet the news that "Fatal Keyboard Explosions Increas 100 Percent!"
So, when creationists scream that the odds are a trillion-to-one that two inert chemicals would form the basics of life, have they taken into account that literall tens of trillions of chemical interactions are going on in any given year? No. They let the trillion-to-one claim stand without actually checking the math. Now, for someone like gore3000, who is nothing more than a simple computer program, checking the math never crosses his mind. However, most creationists aren't nearly as one dimensional as the aforementioned algorythm, so one would expect there to be at least a little questioning of any particular paradigm (this is a tenet of science, so it may be hard for some dyed-in-the-wool creationists to accomplish).
Some ardent creationists have begun questioning their arguments against evolution. The most notable example is Answers in Genesis: Arguments We Think Creationists Should Not Use. While it does not address the statistics issue, it does puncture a number of the hoary canards used by creationists on these threads.
A cathode ray tube is not a motor.
You were really rocking last night. Did you catch the women's skating? I feel bad for Michelle Kwan, but Sarah Hughes really came out and skated like she meant it. Best reality TV I've ever seen.
Because God would seem more the vicious jokester for writing the book of Genesis and describing the creation the way He did if He really made the universe over 15 billion years through evolution.
Well, (a) I disagree that that is the bigger joke. Even assuming the divinity of the Bible, I would regard the existence of facts and observations in the natural world (the handiwork of the Creation) to be stronger evidence for the work of God than a human-copied, edited, and transcribed account. If a picture is worth a thousand words, how many for the planet? But I am still left that God has intentionally deceived me.
(b) If I reject the inerrancy of Genesis (it is divine allegory, or inspirational, or human created, or was intended by God for a specific audience of nomads 4000 years ago, or it was a amalgam of myths, etc.), then the question of trickster-ness vanishes. That seems to be the easier answer: if the facts don't fit the description, it makes more sense to reject the description than the facts.
(c) Finally, your only justification for evolution being wrong is that it disagrees with your religion? I thought the whole point of these crevo threads was to debate the natural evidence (and as the article at the top of the thread points out, the appropriateness of the subject for public schooling, among other things). You seem to have conceded that most important of points: that creationism and the rejection of evolution are entirely and exclusively based on your own personal religious views, and are not scientific questions at all, and that by extension, any person who did not share your literalist religious interpretation would have ne reason to question evolution.
From Creationist Mindblocks to Whale Evolution:
The earliest known whales, Himalayacetus and Pakicetus are presently known only from cranial material, so they are not much help. However, the position of the inner ear bones in Pakicetus are a perfect intermediate between those of land mammals and the rotated ones of cetaceans (Thewissen & Hussain, 1993), not to mention the fact that the tympanic bullae are composed of dense bone as those of cetaceans (Gingerich, et al, 1983).
[Emphasis mine]
Of course, to your limited mind this is no proof. You could look at the individual frames of a movie and claim there is no such thing as a moving picture. Your programming makes you incapable of seeing the forest for the trees.
See post #119. Gravity is falling apart all over the universe.
Actually, we know quite a bit about the formation and conditions of snow. Why it falls, when, where, how much, with what consistency, why it is 'wet' or 'dry', why it is sleet or hail or ice... It has to do with the freezing point, temperature, humidity of the regional airmass, condensation, and stuff - not having much experience with the stuff I would be at a loss to explain it more precisely, but there are those who can.
As to molecules and such, it's water. H2O. Two hydrogen, one oxygen, it freezes and crystalizes. Not too tough. Subatomically, Hydrogen is (usually) an electron and a proton. Oxygen has (usually) 8 of each, plus 8 neutrons. If you want to know more about snow at the subatomic level, you could ask Physicist. But I'm not sure what more you want to know about it.
There is the additional point that your criticism applies equally strongly to everything - if we are uncertain about any aspect of particle physics, I suppose we don't "truly understand" the universe. But again, would you have us teach nothing to anyone? We'd certainly have to throw out the Bible with the bathwater.
If God says over and over and over that this book is His book and that He wrote it. If He says in many diffent ways that the book never contradicts itself and that believing the book is extremely important to having any relationship with Him, BUT, Genesis isn't true, that makes Him quite a huge trickster.
(b) If I reject the inerrancy of Genesis (it is divine allegory, or inspirational, or human created, or was intended by God for a specific audience of nomads 4000 years ago, or it was a amalgam of myths, etc.), then the question of trickster-ness vanishes. That seems to be the easier answer: if the facts don't fit the description, it makes more sense to reject the description than the facts.
Well, it really wouldn't vanish because the rest of the book shows Him to be a trickster for saying that the whole thing was inspired and can't contradict. If you throw out the whole book then I'd agree that the trickster thing goes away and God can just be the God who created everything how ever He wanted and didn't tell us anything about Himself. Then the whole book is worthless. I think that may be how you feel.
(c) Finally, your only justification for evolution being wrong is that it disagrees with your religion? I thought the whole point of these crevo threads was to debate the natural evidence (and as the article at the top of the thread points out, the appropriateness of the subject for public schooling, among other things). You seem to have conceded that most important of points: that creationism and the rejection of evolution are entirely and exclusively based on your own personal religious views, and are not scientific questions at all, and that by extension, any person who did not share your literalist religious interpretation would have ne reason to question evolution.
Almost. There is still a big problem with evolution other than that it doesn't work at any level. That problem is the existance of the space, time, and matter. To believe in evolution while ignoring the difficulty with why things exist is to be like children playing at a playground thinking that it has always been there and that there is no reason to consider thanking any adults for building it.
"Religion does not claim to be science, therefore no scientific proof is required for it. " Then why is it called "creationist theory"?
"It therefore needs to give such proofs or be deened to be mere charlatanism." You ask for proof to substanciate the claims of evolotionism, yet you cannot give proof to support your own. According to your words, then both could be concidered charlatanism, couldn't they?
And before I get accused of being a Godless person, know that I have been a memeber in good standing at my local church for years. And yes it is a Christian church. :)
Oldcats
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.