Creation vs. Evolution

[agilis]

ANCIENT MUSIC by Ezra Pound

Winter is icumen in,
Lhude sing Goddamm,
Raineth drop and staineth slop,
and how the wind doth ramm!
Sing Goddamm
Skiddeth bus and sloppeth us,
An ague hath my ham.
Freezeth river, turneth liver
Damm you, sing: Goddamm...

This poem has nothing to do with the topic of 'Evolution or Ignorance', but I like it, it's timely, and it mentions "God" more often than the blacksmith poem.

 

[H2Andy]

Please share with us the tests that show life arising from lifelessness and dinosaurs evolving into birds. "Look around you", "it must have" or "We know it did" are not scientific; they are statements of faith.

you'll need to educate yourself on these issues, Green... i'm tired of repeating myself. you are very mistaken if you think that's all the evidence there is.

or, don't bother, and continue believing what you do about the creation of the Earth and evolution and such anyway.


agilis, that's a pretty good poem ... too bad Pound turned Nazi and broadcast against American forces during World War II ... he was an odd guy

(he just got some jail time)

 

[lamont]

I just watched a bunch of Nova's yesterday, and it was interesting at the level of scientific ignorance which goes into the other side of this debate. Its not just that carbon dating needs to be wrong. The analysis of the age of volcanic glass by measuring uranium isotope decay in the glass has to be wrong as well. Everything we know about cosmology and the formation of galaxies is wrong. Literally every single program that Nova puts out is full of information that must be wrong if the other side of this debate is right. So either they're wrong or there's some huge conspiracy on the part of all the nuclear physicists, all the volcanologists, all the astronomers, all the biologists, all the geneticists, etc -- or they're all just uniformly misguided. Its just rediculous. The people on the other side of this debate are simply willfully ignorant. Period. And they're not willing to educate themselves, yet they demand the other side of the debate to take the time to dispassionately review every single crackpot with a web page out there. GM and TDP: you guys are wrong, all the webpages you reference are badly flawed, you need to get yourselves an actual science education. That's all I've got left to say because I'm tired of it.

I leave this thread with a much better understanding of the other side of the argument, and with substantially more contempt for them based on the weakness of their argument, and even more convinved that they're wrong.

 

[agilis]

H2Andy, in partial defence of Ezra Pound, among the greatest and most original poets of the 20th Century, let me point out that he was never a Nazi, and did not broadcast anything to American troops during the war. This is why his punishment was fairly light.
Pound was eccentric to a degree that might qualify as a kind of madness. He had no sense of perspective in connection with the real world. His was the poet's singular eye, solipsistic, inward directed. He was a genius; his poetic vision and imagery are brilliant, matchless in his generation.
Pound was living in Italy when the US entered WW2 in December 1941. He was about to leave Italy and return to the US, but the American Embassy screwed up the emigration process for his family. He stayed in Italy, and eventually made broadcasts from there, carried on transatlantic shortwave radio for American audiences. He was highly critical of the US Government and Roosevelt, but what he said were his own words and thoughts, not something written for him by Italian Fascists. Most of it reflected his harebrained political beliefs, and his personal resentments. He defended Fascism, and blamed the Jews for dragging the US into both World Wars. He never discussed military issues, and never broadcast to US Troops.
He was accused of treason but never convicted, and was imprisoned in a mental institution. He was eventually released.

 

[AXL72]

Hey, why did God and Jesus not tell anybody that the earth was round?

Why was that important detail left out of the bible?

 

[bdshort]

AXL72: I just want to say that I think your avatar is very appropriate for this thread!

 

[Snowbear]

Hey, why did God and Jesus not tell anybody that the earth was round?

Why was that important detail left out of the bible?

Was it? Seems at least one guy figured it out....

Job 26:7 He stretches out the north over the empty place, and He hung the earth on nothing.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Hey, why did God and Jesus not tell anybody that the earth was round?

Why was that important detail left out of the bible?

Why is that important?

Who said the earth was flat?

Wikipedia on the flat earth myth
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Today essentially all professional medievalists agree with Russell that the "medieval flat Earth" is a nineteenth-century fabrication, and that the few verifiable "flat Earthers" were the exception.

Pay special attention to this section

Modern times
The common misconception that people before the age of exploration believed that Earth was flat entered the popular imagination after Washington Irving's publication of The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus in 1828. In the United States, this belief persists in the popular imagination, and is even repeated in some widely read textbooks. Previous editions of Thomas Bailey's The American Pageant stated that "The superstitious sailors ... grew increasingly mutinous...because they were fearful of sailing over the edge of the world"; however, no such historical account is known.[34] Actually, sailors were probably among the first to know of the curvature of Earth from daily observations — seeing how shore landscape features (or masts of other ships) gradually descend/ascend near the horizon.

Some articles that address the same but include some information on scripture..

http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/flatearth.html

The flat-earth idea is a relatively recent invention that reached its peak only after Darwinists tried to discredit the Bible, according to a professor of history at the University of California in Santa Barbara.

Professor Jeffrey Burton Russell said in his book Inventing the Flat Earth, first released in the early 1990s, that up until the time of Columbus “nearly unanimous scholarly opinion pronounced the earth spherical”. Professor Russell said he believes that the flat-earth myth can largely be traced back to a story by Washington Irving, which relates a mythical account of Columbus defending a round earth against bigoted, misinformed clergy and university professors.

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c034.html

Christianity has often been held responsible for promoting the flat Earth theory. Yet, it was only a handful of so-called intellectual scholars throughout the centuries, claiming to represent the Church, who held to a flat Earth. Most of these were ignored by the Church, yet somehow their writings made it into early history books as being the 'official Christian viewpoint'.

There is of course the conviction of Galileo but that dispute was over the
geocentric (ancient Greek, Aristotle and Ptolemy, and and heliocentric (of Copernicus, Galileo and Kepler) models. Both, generally held the earth and other heavenly bodies to be spherical. While the church was clearly messed up on this one, the whole affair would seem to further show that not even the church thought the earth was flat.

Who perpetuates the myth today? Skeptics who feel the need to discredit the Bible by disingenously claiming that the Bible teaches a flat earth and others who repeat such without looking into it themselves.

 

[AXL72]

I never said or mis-impied that the bible or the church stated that the earth was flat.

I simply implied that the bible says nothing as to the earth being round. Nor does it talk about other civilizations on the other side of the world.

It's just a question. And I think it is an interesting one.

and, for completeness, I can stretch out a flat table cloth, too.

 

[aquanuts...]

I just watched a bunch of Nova's yesterday, and it was interesting at the level of scientific ignorance which goes into the other side of this debate. Its not just that carbon dating needs to be wrong. The analysis of the age of volcanic glass by measuring uranium isotope decay in the glass has to be wrong as well. Everything we know about cosmology and the formation of galaxies is wrong. Literally every single program that Nova puts out is full of information that must be wrong if the other side of this debate is right. So either they're wrong or there's some huge conspiracy on the part of all the nuclear physicists, all the volcanologists, all the astronomers, all the biologists, all the geneticists, etc -- or they're all just uniformly misguided. Its just rediculous. The people on the other side of this debate are simply willfully ignorant. Period. And they're not willing to educate themselves, yet they demand the other side of the debate to take the time to dispassionately review every single crackpot with a web page out there. GM and TDP: you guys are wrong, all the webpages you reference are badly flawed, you need to get yourselves an actual science education. That's all I've got left to say because I'm tired of it.

I leave this thread with a much better understanding of the other side of the argument, and with substantially more contempt for them based on the weakness of their argument, and even more convinved that they're wrong.

Who ever said that scientific models don't fit? Scientific models do work for a lot of things; heck that is where most of the models we have come from, observation. We observe how somethings move or change and then we hit the blackboard and write equations that model that behavior. I created a mathmatical model of a roller coster as a college project. This taught me an important lesson; with a few simple models (ie parabola's, hyperbola's, circles, arcs, lines, etc) you can model damn near anything if you try. The argument is science doesn't explain the orgin of man completely. It has a piece here and there, but it takes a huge leap of faith to believe in evolution. And IMHO, it takes more than believing in creation.

Until you have had a supernatural experience, you will never get it. There are some things in life that are beyond explaination or proof.

As for the comment that creationist, like myself, are uneducated idots, well your wrong.

Lamont, you are confused. First, growth and decay models, volcanology, astronomy, and other disiplines (except biology) have nothing to do with the orgins of man. Second, do you think just because someone believes in God they shun all scientific thought? I believe animals evolve/adapt over time (fossels prove this as well as living animals, but not for man), science works most of the time (your growth and decay models, volcanology, etc.), and God created us in his own image (personal spirital experiance beyond physical proof). What about this is so hard to grasp? Call it the hybrid theroy of crevolution.