Do you Agree or Disagree in the absolute primacy of time,

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 17 2007, 11:08 PM) [snapback]498234[/snapback]</div>

Fair enough. My exposure to creationists like Duane Gish and Henry Morris leads me to be cynical of all of them, as their lies were many. And your arguments sound exactly like theirs ... and the intelligent design folks, some of which are in legal trouble due to financial shenanigans.

Read The Language of God.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Alric @ Aug 18 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]498354[/snapback]</div>

I object to your pairing Collins with the cartoon immediately following your statement. Collins does not believe the earth is young, and fully and completely accepts evolutionary theory. As the head of the Human Genome Project, he is a well respected scientist.

He believes in God. I understand that bugs you. But your prejudice against believers is unreasonable, and should not lead you to lump men like Collins in with those you obviously consider buffoons.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 17 2007, 02:56 AM) [snapback]497685[/snapback]</div>

Unless you are Tom Cruise.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hyo silver @ Aug 17 2007, 11:26 AM) [snapback]497825[/snapback]</div>

Lunchtime, doubly so.

 

Radiometric dating is an interesting subject and there are loads of misconceptions about it in the general public. As Tryin's quote mentioned, there are many different methods. Each of these methods has valid applications and invalid ones. It all depends on the halflife of the radioactive substance. Carbon14 dating isn't going to tell you how old the earth is, Potassium-Argon dating isn't going to tell you how old that nicely carved bone knife is. My religious relatives once mentioned to me how inaccurate some forms of radioactive dating are. They said something to the effect that the methods could be off by millions on years. When I explained that while that was true, the error in the measurements is actually quite small and that discrepancies that large are only found in dating techniques that measure VERY old things. Carbon14 dating has much smaller errors (when used correctly) because it has a much shorter half life. Their response was "oh" and they looked at me a little suspiciously.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 19 2007, 02:27 PM) [snapback]498735[/snapback]</div>

Radiometric dating is based on pretty elemental properties of isotopes and radioactive decay. Basically its a matter of proving your measurements were made correctly. In case of the age of the earth there are hundreds of independently obtained measurements that verify each other.

 

Sigh... I'm gonna be sorry for getting into this, I know, but I have two points...

Time is what keeps things from happening all at once,

and

Visit the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster for some Real fun!

(at) http://www.venganza.org/

Art

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(tripp @ Aug 19 2007, 12:27 PM) [snapback]498735[/snapback]</div>

I think the other thing to keep in mind is that many disciplines in science date various things, such as the age of the universe by astronomers. The evidence is overwhelming that the universe, and the earth, is over 6,000 years old.

Many of the arguments I hear from <strike>creationists</strike>, er, intelligent design folks are the same arguments I heard 35 years ago. That's because they are arguing from a world-view basis, and see anything other than believing in a literal creation as supporting a view that God cannot exist. That tendency to argue from that perspective is reinforced by what I call "strident secularists" who form the main opposition to them, and include anti-religious sentiments in their arguments.

Christians believe in God. There are other things in the world, like helicopters, that are not in the Bible but that are real. Christians can believe in helicopters. They can believe in evolution. What matters is if the helicopter is real, not if it was or was not mentioned in the Bible.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 19 2007, 06:15 PM) [snapback]498894[/snapback]</div>

Helicopters are mentioned in the bible, once:

Ex 39:26 ... alternating a Bell and a pomegranate all around on the hem of the robe for the service, just as the LORD had commanded Moses.

Not sure why the hem of a robe should be decorated with alternating helicopters and pomegranates, kind of new agey, but it's there, all the same, for those who would otherwise be skeptical that such a thing as a helicopter could ever exist (as most fixed wing pilots will attest, the notion of helicopter is a flagrant violation of common sense and physics, to say nothing of one's bank account).

MB

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 19 2007, 08:18 PM) [snapback]498921[/snapback]</div>

:lol: :lol: :lol:

OK, now show me where Sikorsky is mentioned. Revelations, no doubt.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Pinto Girl @ Aug 18 2007, 08:10 AM) [snapback]497998[/snapback]</div>

I thought that was what airbags were for.

 

Actually, some supercollider experiments in the early '90's show gold nuclei to pass through each other, leaving free quarks in their wake (unless the results were misinterpreted, which might be the case).

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rae Vynn @ Aug 17 2007, 04:34 PM) [snapback]498011[/snapback]</div>

That's one determined, motivated and highly admirable chihuahua, if you ask me.

Dan

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(airportkid @ Aug 19 2007, 07:18 PM) [snapback]498921[/snapback]</div>

Reminds of the first mention of baseball, which is in the first book of the Bible, where it says "In the big inning" or the doctrine of elasticity, where Moses tied his nice person to a tree and walked for miles.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Wildkow @ Aug 20 2007, 03:41 AM) [snapback]499033[/snapback]</div>

I think the problem you will face is not having a subscription to Nature or any of the various scientific journal sources. That makes it somewhat difficult for anyone to link you to a specific paper when then vast majority of the really good ones require a subscription.

I am not so sure it would make any difference in the end as it seems very likely your inent is to use "god of the gaps" strategy or Fred Hoyle's famous falicious arguement regarding a boeing 747 and a hurricane. Or any other arguement from improbability. So far irreducible complexity cannot be used in your arguement either simply because there have been no organism or organ found that cannot be explained in various manners that would have allowed it to evolve into its current form.

If you are not the one who has invoked these arguements in the past then I appologize. I thought it was you.

 

Follow the Evidence

Of course the teachers wouldnt teach students anything that was untrue or leave out changes in history or anything like that....

The histroy books of the 70's sure dont read like the ones of today...

I still have to agree with the above quotes as theres only so much evolution can explain..


I see that things haven't changed much from the biblical days, the people need to see proof before they believe in anything :mellow: .... Yet they believe in what some man says and makes drawing to back up his story?.. :huh:

Simaler to todays history compaired to yester years history things have been reworded or changed to not hurt others feelings...

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 20 2007, 08:45 AM) [snapback]499139[/snapback]</div>

Wow. Reading your quotes from a scientificly oriented mind I would say it reads much like how a lot of us envision the religious population. Assuming what they hear is fact without using any rational thinking to disect the material and examine it.

I think the debate stems less from the inability of evolutionary theory to explain away ignorance and more from the dogged determination of creationists and their feverish pursuit of evidence to prove evolutionary theory wrong.

So from your point of view anything that cannot be explained by the vast knowledge of evolutionary theory atuomatically HAS to be directly attributed to the false nature of the theory and can only be explained by god? That is very much like the god gap idea (anything that cannot be found in the fossil record or be detected with current science must be the work of god) and requires no rational thinking whatsoever. For if it did you would quickly realize that the idea of god is not rational one bit, especially when confronted by the vast database of evolutionary theory and science in general.

I'm thinking your knowledge on evolutionary theory and some sciences in general may not be where they should be to fully understand the picture it paints. Instead of ridiculing I'd rather help to educate you on the subject if you are willing.

What questions do you have that are not explained by evolution? Then give me your solution, the one you believe to be true.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 20 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]499139[/snapback]</div>

Evolution explains precisely what the author says evolution could not possibly explain. The evolution of complex structures like the brain occur in small easy steps over millenia. To say that it could not happen because you don't know how, its not an argument. Its expressing ignorance and laziness for not trying to find out how.

Links like those only pander to what you want to believe out of wishful thinking.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(fshagan @ Aug 19 2007, 02:11 AM) [snapback]498572[/snapback]</div>

Im guessing the lies that are passed off regarding evolution are over looked?
Why shouldnt we look at everyone in the same light? (because they are a member of a spicific group they're all guilty...

Since you only pay a minimum balance on your credit cards or a bad business deal/ investment, does that make you not reputiple?

who cares if somone is in legal/ financial trouble theres always two side to a story..

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(F8L @ Aug 20 2007, 12:00 PM) [snapback]499146[/snapback]</div>

Creation of man, woman, different trees, the duckbilled platupus, the complexity of the human mind & how it works.. I believe god created them all.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 20 2007, 09:06 AM) [snapback]499148[/snapback]</div>

Actually one should care since often times the ideas they espouse are nothing more than a charismatic way to charm their followers out of their money. Think Oral Roberts, Jim Bakker, Kent Hovind etc.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(hycamguy07 @ Aug 20 2007, 09:11 AM) [snapback]499148[/snapback]</div>

So you have no understanding of evolutionary theory at all? Genetic mutation, natural selection, increasing complexity, autopoiesis, symbiogenesis?

How can the idea of god explain away all of these mechanisms for sustaining living networks? The human mind for instance is very similar to networks found throughout the world. When one delves into the science of cognition and/or conciousness (read up on the Santiago Theory of Cognition) you will readily find similar structures and processes everywhere and that while we are unique in our capicity for counciousness, we are not unique in our levels of cognition and that conciousness can be described as just a structure of higher complexity. Complexity is also easily explained, as Alric has done, by making small steps in time or upon reaching bifurcation points (as is evident in chemical systems). By this I am saying humans may be the highest on the scale of conciousness but are we completely alone on that scale? It's doubtful since some forms of life like great apes and dolphin do not seem too far behind. Is it then more logical to deduce that maybe we just got here first and that others may follow given enough time and the right conditions?

A lot of these ideas were not present before the 80's so for those who attended school prior to the 90's I can understand why much of this may seem alien. Once we started to understand and could describe complexity theory and design computer systems capable of calulating the required data, we made quite a leap in our understanding of living systems and the old Cartesian ideas of seperation of mind and body, or seperation at all, have largely gone the way fo the Dodo.