Creation vs. Evolution

[gary-ramey]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Soggy
Yes. I don't like lies and misinformation, nor do I like children's minds being polluted. It doesn't do anyone any good.

Ditto.

Then vet out and police the garbage being taught today in our schools by science books.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Your response also shows your complete lack of understanding of the religious creationist viewpoint. It is not that creationists cannot get it, its that we believe it doesn't line up with the account in Genesis. <insert atheistic ridicule here> The implication is that if the Genesis account is incorrect, then the rest of the scripture might be as well. I'll add that the two Genesis accounts in the Bible leave room for some room for different interpretations of some things but, the crux of the account remain identical.

The Bible doesn't give us much detail about how God accomplished the creating. If we try to view Genesis as having the purpose of relating science, the very least criticism that could be made is that it's incomplete. Couldn't it be argued that "incomplete" is incorrect? Are we in trouble?

Who's trying to convince who? I've haven't really been studying the Bible all that long so, I'd be happy to be corrected here but...As we look through the Bible who is it that's most often the object of the lessons? Isn't it the believers? What is the tool that God seems very fond of using to convince non-believers? Isn't it the faith of the believers? If someone is being rebuked or pruned back so they can yield more fruit later, might it not be the believers?

One last question. Is doing a bad job of debating science a good demonstration of faith? The bible says that God made foolish the wisdom of this world but how? By the preaching of Christ crucified, right? (1 Cor)

 

[Warthaug]

I never claimed to. But maybe you ought to get with your educational comtemporaries. I don't think they're on board with this whole, Laws are imperfect thing.

Oh, but they are. Any introductory university text on science goes into great detail of what laws are, how they work, and why they are no longer used. I was taught that back in my undergrad days, oh so many years ago, and it is how I now teach it to my own students.

Laws are part of scientific history. They represent useful teaching tools, but are openly acknowledged by all as worth little more than that.

Alright - the "why" is the impetus behind testing an observation which is then written into Law. To say the Law pre-existed is correct, but it wasn't defined as such.

You're still missing the point. The main reason laws have been abandoned is because they are purely descriptive - they tell you what happens, but not why. for example:

"Every actions has an equal an opposite reaction"
"Fg=G*M₁*M₂/r²"
"1 = p² + 2qp + q²"

You can go on, and on, and on listing laws. They all describe something, but don't explain why it occurs.

Take the second example - the universal law of gravitation. It tells you how to calculate the force of gravity between two objects. Aside from the fact that it is wrong, it also does not tell you why those two masses generate an attractive force.

To understand why there is an attractive force you need to look to the theory of general relativity, or to the theory of quantum gravity. Only in those theories do you find the "why" gravity exists.

No. The weakness is allowing a fraud to remain on the books for 80 years without pointing it out. Even after it was discovered, nothing was done to correct it until the entertainment and exposure value was exhausted.

I think your 80 year number is wrong, but regardless; one cannot expect errors to be found until someone looks for them.

Sorry to disagree. In the years of Galileo I'd have to agree, religion assumed it had the answers and had the upper hand So it squelched science and learning out of fear and intolerance. Sadly in some cases even malice. Now the shoe is on the other foot. Science (body of, not all individuals) assumes it has all the answers and one of those is that the Biblical account of creation is wrong.

Please point out one place where a scientific theory specifically states that creationism is wrong. You can't, cause there isn't one that does that. science doesn't give a damn about your religion - all we do is faithfully report the observations ewe make of the universe.

if these don't line up with your faith, it quite frankly, isn't our problem. You're the one with the pre-conceived notions that you're so disparate to uphold.

You can't turn on a discovery TV program today without seeing patently false information being distributed to the masses.

And I see that you've provided zero examples.

Open a textbook in school today, I guarantee there are scientific errors.

And? A scientific mistake doesn't magically make your beliefs correct.

Intentional? Mistakes? Whatever the case people like me who profess a belief in the Biblical account of creation are made out to be stupid.

I don't think I ever once called you stupid. Ignorent yes, but those two words have vastly different meanings.

You pride yourself on asking questions and enjoying discovery. Do you ever question any of the information viewed through the rose colored lenses of evolutionary theory?

All the time. Science doesn't advance without us questioning and challenging dogma. But at the end of the day evolution has withstood 149 years of challenge - its withstood several counter-theories, been able to incorporate every observation made so far, is predictive, and it is bloody useful - both for understanding the world around us, and for developing commercial products.

Compare that to what you'd have us believe - something with no use as a scientific tool, requires that we ignore most of the data generated over the last 149 years, and no research or commercial applicability.

Bryan

 

[Warthaug]

Now someone stated this law is wrong.

That would be me. I think we're going to argue about the definition of "wrong"...

The law is not wrong, it very accurately describes all phenomena we encounter in every day life. Like any physical law, this law is perfectly adequate with certain bounderies but becomes inaccurate outside these bounderies.

I would argue the exact opposite. The law of gravitation specifically predicts that light will not be affected by mass, as light is massless and therefore Fg will always be zero. This is a completely false prediction, therefore the law is wrong - plain and simple.

I'd also point out that mass-energy equivelency does not predict the amount of gravitation bending that occurs; in fact it over-estimates it by several magnitudes. Likewise, a mass-energy equivelency would not only bend light, but split it into different spectra, as different frequencies of light would get bent more/less, as their mass-energy equivelents are different. This is not observed.

Instead, the angle of bending is derived from general relativity:
angle of bend = GM/rc², where
G = gravitational constant
M = mass of object
r = distance between object and photon
c² = speed of light squared

As you can see, the angle of bending is solely determined by the mass of the object bending the light, and the lights distance from the mass.

As four boundary conditions, it is the nessesity of boundary conditions to make laws valid which originally resulted in laws being rejected as a valid scientific principal. Simply put, if a scientific principal only works some of the time, then it cannot possibly be correct. Lets not forget that the first principal of a scientific theories and hypothesis are that they must explain all known data. Boundary conditions indicate that a law fails to do this.

Take the example of gravity - the boundary conditions in which it is correct are so stringent that the law can only be correct in an imaginary universe:

1) There can be no other mass in the system (as the law only holds true in the absence of any extraneous space-time curvature).

2) The two objects must be at rest compared to each other (as any motion, not matter how small, induces relativistic effects).

Bryan

 

[Soggy]

Then vet out and police the garbage being taught today in our schools by science books.

We should probably start with your school.

 

[Spencermm]

Piss me off- somebody on an internet forum?
No Sir.

 

[Sordello]

Take the example of gravity - the boundary conditions in which it is correct are so stringent that the law can only be correct in an imaginary universe:

1) There can be no other mass in the system (as the law only holds true in the absence of any extraneous space-time curvature).

2) The two objects must be at rest compared to each other (as any motion, not matter how small, induces relativistic effects).

Bryan

Don't even try to explain the theory of relativity... Newton is hard enough to comprehend - and even though he was wrong. His math was close enough to get pretty much everything to where it was supposed to go.

I have tried to explain relativity in layman's language - it still makes your brain hurt! and people will still look at you like your nuts.

 

[Mermaid71]

I would like to respond to the original thread of "Creation vs. Evolution".

I used to be a fundamentalist with strong Creationist ideas. However, I now have a Masters in Biology and through education and personal research and observation have come to strongly understanding that there is so much evidence pointing towards evolution. The evidence is so strong. As a Creationist one thing I was told was that Evolution can not be repeated and also that it is not happening right now. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is being repeated and happening even as I write this post. For example, take all the various kinds of cats and dogs we have. These different breeds were created (and are currently being created) through what is called "Artificial Selection" (produced by man). Well, if it is possible to produce this type of selection artificially why couldn't it happen naturally. There are many different aspects of evolution I could address but I would like to keep this short.

Another thing I want to mention is that people seem to have this misconception that if you want to believe in God you cant believe in evolution. I dont really understand this.
Why couldn't God have created animals in this manner.
The more I learn about science the more I am convinced that there must be a supernatural force that must govern everything, but I have also learned that I have had to make some compromises regarding my fundamentalist beliefs as I have found very clear evidence that was contrary to my former beliefs.

It is like during the Middle ages when people thought the earth was flat. Explorers would come back to Europe and tell people how they didn't fall over the side of the earth but instead found themselves in India. People started to realize their beliefs were wrong - Not that there was no God but just that the world was not flat.
Ok that's my two cents.

 

[Mermaid71]

I would like to respond to the original thread of "Creation vs. Evolution".

I used to be a fundamentalist with strong Creationist ideas. However, I now have a Masters in Biology and through education and personal research and observation have come to strongly understanding that there is so much evidence pointing towards evolution. The evidence is so strong. As a Creationist one thing I was told was that Evolution can not be repeated and also that it is not happening right now. That couldn't be farther from the truth. Evolution is being repeated and happening even as I write this post. For example, take all the various kinds of cats and dogs we have. These different breeds were created (and are currently being created) through what is called "Artificial Selection" (produced by man). Well, if it is possible to produce this type of selection artificially why couldn't it happen naturally. There are many different aspects of evolution I could address but I would like to keep this short.
Another thing I want to mention is that people seem to have this misconception that if you want to believe in God you cant believe in evolution. I dont really understand this.
Why couldn't God have created animals in this manner.
The more I learn about science the more I am convinced that there must be a supernatural force that must govern everything, but I have also learned that I have had to make some compromises regarding my fundamentalist beliefs as I have found very clear evidence that was contrary to my former beliefs.

It is like during the Middle ages when people thought the earth was flat. Explorers would come back to Europe and tell people how they didn't fall over the side of the earth but instead found themselves in India. People started to realize their beliefs were wrong. Not that there was no God but just that the world was not flat.
Ok that's my two cents.

 

[Mermaid71]

Sorry - somehow this got posted twice