Evolution Disclaimer Supported

The Advocate (Baton Rouge) ^ | 12/11/02 | WILL SENTELL

[Doctor Stochastic]

This is the definition used by people working in the field.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Question, where did all the energy needed come from in the first place?

Remember that the total energy in the Universe is extremely close to zero.

[Aracelis]

Actually I had not noticed your post. Nevertheless, it was proper to ignore it. It is the usual nonsense which evolutionists do of posting a lot of stuff that is true, but is absolutely not to the point being discussed.

Aren't you tired of posting your typical swill? By now you should have realized that your continued disingenuous attacks against highly-degreed individuals will not reinflate your sadly collapsed and tattered ego. RadioAstronomer in post 1303 and others have attempted once again to define terms in simple language so that even YOU can understand what is being said. The only error RadioAstronomer made was to invest his time and effort in a futile attempt to educate you.

BTW, when will you finally admit that a circle is in fact an ellipse? Or perhaps we should try something simpler...what is the age of the Earth? PatrickHenry, I and many others continue to await your vast knowledge and expertise.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Beware the thread that would not die!

[Physicist]

That's a bold statement. With that, your telling me that in 10 thousand years from now, humans will have discovered nothing new out there, or even changed previous theories from new evidence.

Not at all. I'm saying there's nothing out there that solves your problem. We don't know everything about the universe, but that's not the same thing as saying we know nothing about it. Your hope demands that we are wrong about everything.

That's ok. I'm sure many scientists in the middle ages thought the same thing.

Of course, they didn't have the tools to see the history of the universe, as we have. Instead, they relied on their Bibles.

[Aracelis]

Whoops! Forgot to ping you to this too...post 1663

[optimistically_conservative]

Because a theory, like a portrait, is an approximation. When a better approximation is found, it is adopted.

I agree. I think science provides explanations, knowledge, and at best understanding. But not Truth. Unless you accept scientific explanations as partial or half Truths, or evolving Truths, until something better comes along.

Existence exists.

Again, I agree. I also leave open the possibility of the existence of realities that I am not yet aware of.

According to this standard, evolution would rank as a "superb" theory.

So be it. I have no problem with that.

[Physicist]

Question, where did all the energy needed come from in the first place?

What's the total energy of the universe?

Scientists tell us that energy can’t be created nor destroyed, nor can we create something from nothing.

Why do you think scientists say that (that is, mathematically, where do conservation laws come from)? And why do you accept that idea, but not the idea of the Big Bang?

[usastandsunited]

Of course, they didn't have the tools to see the history of the universe, as we have. Instead, they relied on their Bibles

I wonder what our future scientists will be jeering & laughing about what scientists today relied on ?

My point is clear, you made the claim that the Genesis account has been proven false. I'm saying no it hasn't, not by a long shot.

[Physicist]

I think science provides explanations, knowledge, and at best understanding. But not Truth.

Like religion, science is a representation of the truth. (Note that my word choice stands.) The claims of both science and religion are made of words; obviously Reality isn't made of words. But groups of words can be right or wrong, that is, they can be a better or worse representation of the truth. The correctability of science makes it a better representation of the truth than religion.

[Physicist]

I wonder what our future scientists will be jeering & laughing about what scientists today relied on ?

It won't be our telescopes. Period. A telescope will forever be the apotheosis of scientific instrumentation, as it has been since Galileo.

My point is clear, you made the claim that the Genesis account has been proven false. I'm saying no it hasn't, not by a long shot.

The only way you can make that statement is to reject the evidence.

[whattajoke]

For the 1 millionth time, ONE CAN NOT PROVE A NEGATIVE! It is certainly not up to us (or anyone) to Prove something didn't happen. THE BURDEN OF PROOF RESTS UPON THOSE CLAIMING SOMETHING. I can't prove Genesis isn't 100% accurate just as you can't prove the creation myth of the Dingalonggoogoo tribe of the Amazon (which states that a giant crocodile laid a giant egg and the earth sprung from within) is false.

The mechanics of evolution, however, are simply words on paper which try to describe how things came to be. I fail to see where that becomes so difficult for so many to swallow. As it stands, evolution does a darn good job at explaining things, and backs it up. To date, the christian version of creation has yet to bring a shred of evidence to the table as it always comes down to ONE word: FAITH. And I'm sorry, I wouldn't get on a plane if it was put together on faith anymore than I'll believe a creation myth based upon the same.

[usastandsunited]

A telescope will forever be the apotheosis of scientific instrumentation, as it has been since Galileo.


yeah, yeah, some young 15 year old 10000 years from now will probably look back at that claim and laugh at you..

The only way you can make that statement is to reject the evidence.

Ok. Where's the evidence proving otherwise ? I haven't seen you post it yet. A lack of physical evidence (light existed before the sun that allowed plants to live) to prove my point by no means shifts the evidence of proof on your side to disprove the ancient account.

[Mikey]

”And why do you accept that idea, but not the idea of the Big Bang?”

Just like the theory of the big bang. Scientists state that the universe began (they avoid the term created) with a big bang with all the energy needed to form the universe. Question, where did all the energy needed come from in the first place? Scientists tell us that energy can’t be created nor destroyed, nor can we create something from nothing. I have a theory about the origins of universes but, it still doesn’t explain where the original energy came from in the first place. It has to be God.

Where do I state that I don’t believe in the big bang theory? I’m just asking the question, where did the original energy come from in the first place?

[js1138]

Give up trying to judge ancient people by your own standard of morality; it doesn't work.

I just assumed God had one standard that didn't fluctuate with the political winds.

[Physicist]

Bearfabrique Evolution Links

Bearfabrique? ROFL! If you want to torpedo your credibility, you can hardly do better than to link to that. That's the page of Ted Holden, who is probably the most thoroughly discredited person on the entire internet. He used to post here under the name of "medved", until his insanity became too much for the moderators. You would do well to steer well clear of the man and his ideas.

[Tribune7]

Exactly! And His miracles are used sparingly, typically to illustrate a specific point He's trying to make.

Einstein, don't tell God what to do. :-)

However, there is no evidence of the miraculous in the ascent of man, nor is there any evidence of the miraculous in the ascent of life on this world.

That's what Behe and Dembski are counter-arguing.

Now, I'm not criticizing those who say Behe is wrong because they have a belief that concrete evidence against his examples of irreducible complexity will be found. I do think that today, however, there are many in the scientific community whose arguments against Behe can be summed up as "Oh Yeah! Is Not."

I personally don't believe in common descent -- why would is it so hard to believe that God made more than one incident of abiogenesis all the while recognizing that random mutation and natural selection are observable forces with a role to play -- but I have no problem accepting Genesis as an allegory either. It doesn't hurt my sensibilities to believe that my grandfather 10^20 is some kind of lizard (or whatever.) Behe -- I think -- believes in common descent.

[js1138]

The correctability of science makes it a better representation of the truth than religion.

Religion is correctable, but the claims that one bit of writing is the inerrant word of God makes change painfully slow. My friends who have been discussing religion and slavery are proof that religion evolves.

[Physicist]

Where do I state that I don’t believe in the big bang theory?

Well, OK, but you clearly give greater primacy to the idea of energy conservation. Why is that? Could energy conservation not be a consequence of the Big Bang?

I’m just asking the question, where did the original energy come from in the first place?

Doctor Stochastic already gave you the answer. The total energy being zero, it didn't have to come from anywhere.

[Tribune7]

Now, I was under the impression that in at least one of the cities taken during the Exodus, God commanded His followers to kill all the men and boys capable of bearing arms and to enslave everyone else.

There are several incidents in the OT in which massacre is ordered. Thank God for the NT.