A Question About The Creation

[prisonchaplain]

Sgallan, you conflate the term "creationist" with "Intelligent Design." IMHO, the debate between "Creationism"--especially the Young Earth variety, and Evolution is largely over. It's not that Evolution is now treated as fact, but rather that Creationism cannot conform to a purely scientific mode of study. It is married too directly and stridently with biblical interpretations.

The Intelligent Design hypothesis was an attempt to expunge the non-scientific doctrines, and explore, from a purely scientific model, the idea that the universe demonstrates "Intelligent Design." There is no insistence that this intelligence is a god, nor that the world popped into existence 6000 years ago...forming into our current mode in a 6-day period.

To put it another way: The scientific community rejected Creationism and said, you don't play be the rules. So, I.D. came along, and followed the rules. Nevertheless, it was dismissed out of hand as religion, not science. Seems to me that there is some non-theistic doctrine at play--not a pure desire to protect science from religion.

[sgallan]

More tibbits; even Behe - a huge proponent of creeationalism - had to conceed the below under oath....

"As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",[14] and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[15]"

To put it another way: The scientific community rejected Creationism and said, you don't play be the rules. So, I.D. came along, and followed the rules. Nevertheless, it was dismissed out of hand as religion, not science. Seems to me that there is some non-theistic doctrine at play--not a pure desire to protect science from religion.

As you can see by what I posted above.... it clearly did not play by the rules. There is 139 pages saying exactly that.

[prisonchaplain]

More tibbits; even Behe - a huge proponent of creeationalism - had to conceed the below under oath....

"As a primary witness for the defense, Behe was asked to support the idea that intelligent design was legitimate science. Behe's critics have pointed to a number of key exchanges under cross examination, where he conceded that "there are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred",[14] and that the definition of 'theory' as he applied it to intelligent design was so loose that astrology would qualify as a theory by definition as well.[15]"

Without context, I'd suggest that I.D. is so new as a theory, that such demands are premature. These credentials come as the theories are tested. My sense--and I admit to being a non-scientist--is that those opposed to creationism saw I.D. as a mere re-packaging, and campaigned to declare it Dead on Arrival--without granting any room for such testing to develop.

[sgallan]

From the actual ruling (this ruling was NOT appealed AND the School District had to pay over 1,000,000 dollars in legal fees and damages)....

"For the reasons that follow, we conclude that the religious nature of ID [intelligent design] would be readily apparent to an objective observer, adult or child" (page 24)

"A significant aspect of the IDM [intelligent design movement] is that despite Defendants’ protestations to the contrary, it describes ID as a religious argument. In that vein, the writings of leading ID proponents reveal that the designer postulated by their argument is the God of Christianity." (page 26)

"The evidence at trial demonstrates that ID is nothing less than the progeny of creationism" (page 31)

"The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory." (page 43)

"Throughout the trial and in various submissions to the Court, Defendants vigorously argue that the reading of the statement is not “teaching” ID but instead is merely “making students aware of it.” In fact, one consistency among the Dover School Board members’ testimony, which was marked by selective memories and outright lies under oath, as will be discussed in more detail below, is that they did not think they needed to be knowledgeable about ID because it was not being taught to the students. We disagree." (footnote 7 on page 46)

"After a searching review of the record and applicable caselaw, we find that while ID arguments may be true, a proposition on which the Court takes no position, ID is not science. We find that ID fails on three different levels, any one of which is sufficient to preclude a determination that ID is science. They are: (1) ID violates the centuries-old ground rules of science by invoking and permitting supernatural causation; (2) the argument of irreducible complexity, central to ID, employs the same flawed and illogical contrived dualism that doomed creation science in the 1980's; and (3) ID's negative attacks on evolution have been refuted by the scientific community." (page 64)

"[T]he one textbook [Pandas] to which the Dover ID Policy directs students contains outdated concepts and flawed science, as recognized by even the defense experts in this case." (pages 86–87)

"ID’s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard. The goal of the IDM is not to encourage critical thought, but to foment a revolution which would supplant evolutionary theory with ID." (page 89)

"Accordingly, we find that the secular purposes claimed by the Board amount to a pretext for the Board’s real purpose, which was to promote religion in the public school classroom, in violation of the Establishment Clause." (page 132)

Some after the ruling responses and communitary......

Judge Jones himself anticipated that his ruling would be criticized, saying in his decision that:

Those who disagree with our holding will likely mark it as the product of an activist judge. If so, they will have erred as this is manifestly not an activist Court. Rather, this case came to us as the result of the activism of an ill-informed faction on a school board, aided by a national public interest law firm eager to find a constitutional test case on ID, who in combination drove the Board to adopt an imprudent and ultimately unconstitutional policy. The breathtaking inanity of the Board’s decision is evident when considered against the factual backdrop which has now been fully revealed through this trial. The students, parents, and teachers of the Dover Area School District deserved better than to be dragged into this legal maelstrom, with its resulting utter waste of monetary and personal resources.

Dr. John West, Associate Director of the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute, said: "The Dover decision is an attempt by an activist federal judge to stop the spread of a scientific idea and even to prevent criticism of Darwinian evolution through government-imposed censorship rather than open debate, and it won't work. He has conflated Discovery Institute’s position with that of the Dover school board, and he totally misrepresents intelligent design and the motivations of the scientists who research it."[19]

Newspapers have noted with interest that the judge is "a Republican and a churchgoer."[

[prisonchaplain]

So, my sense was right. The lawyers argued that ID is creationism and fraudelent Christian evangelism. The judge agreed and so ruled.

I.D. is not dead. But, it may be that those who wish to pursue the science of it need to do the rigorous work of experimentation before they can seek to have their theories incorporated into public school curriculum.

[sgallan]

There will always be proponents of alternative sciences...... often called psudeoscience. But like the atrology mentioned, or even Flying Spaghetti Monster theory, ID is pretty much relegated to that category. I don't have any issues with that. People can believe what they want as long as they don't screw around with legitimate science education. The future well being of our country in an increasingly technologically based world depends on it.

[mmm12345]

Sgallan, you conflate the term "creationist" with "Intelligent Design." IMHO, the debate between "Creationism"--especially the Young Earth variety, and Evolution is largely over. It's not that Evolution is now treated as fact, but rather that Creationism cannot conform to a purely scientific mode of study. It is married too directly and stridently with biblical interpretations.

The Intelligent Design hypothesis was an attempt to expunge the non-scientific doctrines, and explore, from a purely scientific model, the idea that the universe demonstrates "Intelligent Design." There is no insistence that this intelligence is a god, nor that the world popped into existence 6000 years ago...forming into our current mode in a 6-day period.

To put it another way: The scientific community rejected Creationism and said, you don't play be the rules. So, I.D. came along, and followed the rules. Nevertheless, it was dismissed out of hand as religion, not science. Seems to me that there is some non-theistic doctrine at play--not a pure desire to protect science from religion.

Amen, Chaplain!

Sqallan, as I said earlier, I am not a scientist so I therefore cannot talk their talk. And I believe it is the talk that's doing the walking in evolution and not the facts themselves. That's also what has happened with the legal system in this great Christian/Judeo nation. The very first university, Harvard, was started with the express purpose of making sure that children would grow up to be able to read their Bibles. Christians love education. We are more than willing to look at the facts, consider the different points of view and then reach our on conclusions based upon reason in light of the facts. Evolution is a theory that is searching for facts that support it. I.D. is a theory that can very easily take those same facts and say, Hey, look how nicely it all fits together! Evolution keeps tripping over their own conclusions and groping for all kinds of "quantum leaps" to make their theory work. The theory stands alone, the facts keep proving it wrong. Now, again, I don't have room to bore you with my shaky knowledge of this subject, but why don't you go to this website and do some investigative reporting in our camp, look at the facts in light of our theory and then make some determinations.

But that again brings me back to the beginning of the whole thing, you'd actually have to look at the facts, turn them around, think about them, see if they fit and then come to a conclusion that it's spagetti monster nonsense, and you'd have to do all that before you dismiss even looking into it based on the laws in place today which give you the right to close your mind because it would be wrong to look at anything that hints of a supernatural creator within the schema of science or society - your religion wouldn't allow that.

Here is something I copied from another great website - even better than answers in Genesis . org - that has a section dealing specifically with the facts from reputable science and looking at them without the evolution security goggles on. I'm not sure of the timetable they adhere to, but it is a solid argument for I.D. vs. TOE

The website is godandscience.org.

General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 1, Are Your Beliefs Consistent with Your Worldview?

by Rich Deem

Introduction Does everything have a natural cause?

Atheists believe that all cause and effect in the universe has a naturalistic origin. Observational data lead us to the conclusion that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Since all things that begin to exist must have a cause, this means that the universe has a cause. However, a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe cannot be confirmed observationally. Therefore, atheists believe the tenet that all phenomena have a naturalistic cause based solely upon faith in naturalism.

Rich Deem

This is the first part of a 2 part introduction to the evidence for belief in the God of Christianity. This first part considers what people believe and why. The main point is that we must consider the possibility that our beliefs are wrong, in order to realistically examine the evidence that contradicts our beliefs. This principle applies to both believers and skeptics alike. For myself, having grown up as an agnostic atheist (one who doesn't believe in God, but doesn't claim that no god exists), I have undergone a couple paradigm shifts as an adult. The first occurred as an undergraduate at USC in the early 1970's, when I went from atheism to deism (a belief that a god created the universe), as a result of my perception that science had failed miserably in its explanation of the origin of the universe and the origin of life on earth. My second, more difficult paradigm shift occurred in the late 1980's, when I determined that Jesus Christ was the God who created the universe and life in it. If you are ready to consider the possibility that your beliefs might be wrong, and look directly at the evidence, feel free to skip ahead to part 2. However, I feel it is important for skeptics to recognize that not all their beliefs are based upon physical evidence, and are even consistent with their own worldview.

Do skeptics have beliefs?Most skeptics take pride in their intellectual ability and like to think that they have no "beliefs." However, modern science has shown us that everyone has beliefs, since this is how our brains work. A good introduction to this field can be found in Andrew Newberg's book, Why We Believe What We Believe: Uncovering Our Biological Need for Meaning, Spirituality, and Truth. Although we would like to think that everything we believe is based upon evidence and logic, this is simply not true. In fact, we become emotionally bound to our worldview, so much so that worldview changes occur rarely, if at all. Since I am asking you to consider a worldview change, I am going to ask you to dump your emotional attachment to your worldview and consider the evidence apart from your emotional attachments.

The skeptical worldviewBefore we can get started, we need to agree on some principles that govern (or should govern) a skeptical worldview. The first and foremost is that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. Unlike theists, who base some of their beliefs on religious writings, skeptics must reply completely upon physical evidence. The second principle is that skeptics must be logically consistent at all times. In other words, a skeptic may not believe something to be true if it is contradicted by observational evidence. Most skeptics who are atheists believe that all phenomena have naturalistic causes. This belief is based upon the observation of our world, in which cause and effect are observed on a daily basis, with rare exception, if at all. One must ask the question, "Just because cause and effect overwhelmingly operate in our universe, does this mean that supernatural events never occur?" Even in the Bible, which claims to be a record of God's supernatural actions, over 90% of what is described is purely naturalistic. So, even the Bible recognizes that the vast majority of events that occur in the universe have a natural cause. However, one who insists that supernatural events never occur is expressing a belief that can never be fully confirmed. To be truly open-minded, one must recognize the possibility that supernatural events do occur.

Problem with the skeptical worldviewLet me point out one major problem with the skeptical worldview in order to get you to the point of recognizing that not all the data really fits your worldview. The data we are going to examine is the origin of the universe. Before the 20th century, atheists assumed that the universe was eternal. However, beginning with Einstein's theory of general relativity,1 and early observational evidence,2 it became apparent that the universe was expanding. Extrapolating back in time revealed that the universe was merely billions of years old. The data eventually led to the "Big Bang" theory, which is virtually universally accepted by modern day cosmologist.3 Attempts to get around the idea4 that the universe had a beginning3 have all met with observational difficulties.5 The idea that the universe could have gone through an infinite number of births and deaths (the oscillating universe theory) was shown to be false on the basis of the lack of amount of matter within the universe, and the fact that any collapse would have led to a "Big Crunch" instead of another Big Bang.6 So, we have come to realize that the universe first began to exist 13.7 billion years ago. Atheists are left with a dilemma, since their worldview requires that all things that begin to exist must have a cause. So, logic requires the admission that the universe had a cause. Virtually all atheists say that this cause was some natural phenomenon. It is also possible that the cause of the universe was a supernatural intelligence (i.e., God). However, there is no direct observational evidence for either belief. Those who are "strong atheists" (not working out in the gym, but having a belief that no god exists) have just violated one of the main rules of atheism - that all beliefs are based upon observational evidence. So, any atheist who denies the possible existence of God violates his own worldview.

The problem actually gets worse for the atheist. The physical laws of the universe fall within very narrow ranges in order for life (or even matter) to exist, suggesting design (the evidence supporting this statement will be presented in part 2). If true, then the observational evidence actually leans toward the existence of God, contradicting strong atheism. The prospect of finding a naturalistic cause for the origin of the universe is bleak at best, since the laws of physics indicate that we will never be able escape the bounds of our universe to even attempt to look for the cause of the universe.

Part 2: Is there any evidence to support this possible existence of God?

Conclusion A skeptic or atheist is governed by two main principles: 1) all beliefs must be supported by observational evidence, and 2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence. Continued in part 2...

Part 2: Evidence for Belief in God | Part 3: Why Christianity?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Related Pages Evidence for God's Existence from Cosmology

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

General Introduction for Non-Believers: Part 2 Evidence for Belief in God

God of the Gaps - Do All Christian Apologetics Fall Into This Kind of Argument?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

References General Relativity - Einstein Discovers God

Origins of the Big Bang Theory

The Universe is Not Eternal, But Had A Beginning

Infinite/Eternal Universe Problems

Alternate Models for the Origin of the Universe

Infinite/Eternal Universe Problems

Steady State Universe Problems

Oscillating Universe: Observational Problems

The Universe as an Engine: Oscillating Universe Observational Problems

The Hartle-Hawking Model: Observational Problems

Quantum Cosmology: Observational Problems

Oscillating Universe: Observational Problems

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atheismintro.html

[sgallan]

Like I said, you can believe what you want. And if your beliefs help you get through life than I am all for them. I'm not looking for converts. As long as it doesn't directly harm me I don't really care what anybody believes. I have no particular use for these beliefs, nor do I see any value in said beliefs.....and I am raising another little heathen (best described at the moment as a 12 year old diest) as well. It is the various religious views on science (she very much like science and math) are sort of what helps me keep her from being interested in any specific religion.

All of that is neither here nor there as far as the real world educational system goes. The courts have ruled. The voters have voted. The scientists and scientific community and people who fund and accredidate these institutions have spoken as well. Within the real world of science and education, ID has been determined to be psudeoscience and religious in nature, and thusly has no place in the educational science world as determined by the scientists and the courts. As long as that is the case y'all can believe whatever you want.

[Maureen]

Here's some information I found regarding what Evolution really is, in case some out there are still confused or misinformed.

What is evolution? Why do some people claim it is false? This short essay tries to make it clear why evolutionary science is often unjustly accused of being 'false' or 'untrue', or 'just a theory'. Actually, it is a well-accepted fact....

...The real problem is that the public, and creationists, do not understand what evolution is all about. Once we realize that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" it seems a little silly to pretend that this doesn't happen!

The five ideas below seem to be the most common misconceptions. If you hear anyone making any of them, chances are excellent that they don't know enough about the real theory of evolution to make informed opinions about it.

Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.

Evolution has never been observed.

Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

There are no transitional fossils.

The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below....

http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files...tion/facts.html

The rest can be read from the link provided.

M.

[sgallan]

2) beliefs that contradict observational evidence cannot be tolerated. However, strong atheism states that there is no god, even though observational evidence indicates that the universe has a cause that cannot be detected observationally. So despite the lack of observational evidence for a naturalistic cause for the universe, the strong atheist believes that the universe has a naturalistic cause and that there is no god, contradicting the tenet that all beliefs should be based upon observational evidence.

This is what's known as the "God of the gaps" argumentation. Basically it says that because we do not know causation it therefore must be a God who did it. That is a logical fallacy. I could just as easily say that the Flying Spagheti Monster did it and I would have the same validation.

Sure I cannot disprove any possible God. But then again you cannot disprove the Invisible Dragon I have living under my house either. I see no particular reason to believe in any of the thousands of god variations anymore than you see any particular reason to believe in the Hindu religion, or to believe in the Dragon under my house. But again, if you have value in your beliefs, and they help you to be a better person, and to get through this thing called life, then I would suggest you keep them. They don't work for me - and I just don't believe - but I am not you.

[CrimsonKairos]

For me, setting religion aside for a moment, I have to believe that a Supreme Being is responsible for our universe, particularly our galaxy, and specifically our solar system.

I look at the complexity of life on this planet, and consider lots of the variables necessary for life to flourish here, such as: earth's distance from the sun; the discrete atmospheric conditions supportive of life; the earth's electro-magnetic field that protects earth from solar winds and other harmful cosmic phenomenon; etc.

After considering those things and many more, I ask myself, "What is the probability that all of those specific arrangements occurred by chance or without being acted upon by an external organizing force or power?"

I'm not an expert at math, nor even very interested in it (whereas my dad taught physics at the USAFA...guess I fell far from the tree ). However, I do find the application of the concept of factorials to the discussion of evolution to be very interesting.

For example: Say you put 26 scraps of paper into a top-hat; each scrap of paper has one letter of the English alphabet on it. Then say you start pulling out a scrap of paper, one at a time. If you want to know the probability of you pulling out each letter of the alphabet in order (e.g. a, b, c, d, etc.) you would calculate it with a factorial, written thusly:

26!

The exclamation mark signifies a factorial (I'm talking stats&probability here). It means that you would multiply the number in front of the exclamation mark by itself minus one, by that number minus one, by that number minus one, until you reach zero. So:

26 x 25 x 24 x 23 x 22 x 21 x 20 x 19 x 18 x 17 x 16 x 15 x 14 x 13 x 12 x 11 x 10 x 9 x 8 x 7 x 6 x 5 x 4 x 3 x 2 x 1 = ?

Why do we calculate the probability like this? Easy. To start with, there are 26 pieces of paper in the hat since there are 26 letters in the alphabet. So the probability of you choosing the letter "A" out of all the letters is a "1 in 26 probability." Well say you did choose the "A" out of the hat. Now there are 25 letters left, and the probability of you choosing the "B" is a "1 in 25 probability." And so on. We multiply these numbers to get the total number of possible sequences of letters you could choose.

In case you're wondering, the probability of picking the 26 letters of the alphabet in sequence, one by one, from the hat, is:

4.032914611266057e+26

Written without the scientific notation on the end, we have the number:

403,291,461,126,605,700,000,000,000

That means there are 403 septillion, 291 sextillion, 461 quintillion, 126 quadrillion, 605 trillion, 700 billion different possible sequences of letters that you could come up with by choosing one scrap of paper from the hat one after the other. So the probability of choosing the 26 letters of the alphabet in correct order (a, b, c, d, etc.) is 1 out of 403 septillion (rounding off for simplicity).

So taking that concept and applying it to our universe, or heck, even just our earth, we can say: "For life to exist on this earth, its orbit must keep it such-and-such distance away from the sun to keep the temperature hot enough but not too hot, and cool enough but not too cool. How many different orbits could the earth have around the sun, or how many different distances can the earth be from the sun while still supporting human life?"

The earth is--on average--about 93 million miles from the sun. According to what I've read, if our earth's orbit took it one mile closer to the sun or one mile further away from the sun than its present orbit, human life would not be able to survive the change in temperature and climate.

I don't know the specifics, but I assume that our earth is heavy enough that if it were further from the sun it would break its orbit and spin off into space. So let's just use 93 million miles as our top end, and 1 mile as our low end in terms of how far the earth could have been from the sun (I know earth's mass would have to change to support a stable orbit at different distances, and that's just one more factor to throw into the calculation but I'll leave that alone for now).

So what are the chances that the earth's orbit would keep it 93 million miles away from the sun? Have fun calculating 93 million factorial, i.e.

93,000,000!

Remember the exclamation mark means factorial, so you'd multiply:

93,000,000 x 92,999,999 x 92,999,998 x 92,999,997 etc all the way down to 1. If you calculated that total, you'd have the total possible number of orbits from the sun in miles that the earth could take (again using 93 million miles as our cut-off point). You can use this online factorial calculator to verify my results in the alphabet example, and in this orbit example.

I tried to calculate 93 million factorial, but it hung up the script on the website. So I tried just 930,000 and it gave the result: "infinity," which means something with a ton of zeroes behind it. In other words, the probability that our earth would randomly settle into its present orbit at 93 million miles away from the sun is 1 out of...ummm...infinity. Technically, it's possible, but probable? Hardly.

So that leads me to conclude that its highly improbable that the earth just happened to settle into its current orbit at the optimum distance from the sun to keep the climate supportive of human life. Is it more probable that a Supreme Being, or Organizing Force, or Intelligent Designer () set the earth's orbit in order to make it hospitable to human life? I think so, but I can't even begin to tell you how to calculate the probability of that.

Perhaps that's the objection to including Intelligent Design in science classes. How do you calculate the probability that there exists an Organizing and Intelligent Designer who could have "set things into motion" in terms of our galaxy?

In the end, I can't tell you how probable it is that there exists an Intelligent Designer (whether that Being is God or some other sentient Being).

What I can tell you is that it is extremely improbable that the earth's orbit around the sun happened by chance, let alone all the other factors necessary to support the diversity of life currently inhabiting our planet.

[sgallan]

What I can tell you is that it is extremely improbable that the earth's orbit around the sun happened by chance, let alone all the other factors necessary to support the diversity of life currently inhabiting our planet.

I can have fun with statistics too (or sadistics as I called it in college). Today at an exact time of the day, I hit a bug. The odds of my hitting that bug, in that exact place, at that exact time, given everything that could have happened to put me, or the bug, somewhere else at that exact time, before it actually happened are basically incalculable. Yet it did. Was God directly responsible for that unfortunate end of that particular bug?

[CrimsonKairos]

Probably, though its improbable that such a probability would not exist.

[sgallan]

LOL.... you got my point. Statistics are fun, but can neither prove, nor disprove, a God.

About the only thing that could prove a God would be God - using infinate powers in such a way there is no doubt That God is God. Surely a God can pull this off.

People will say.... where is there freewill and faith. Faith given the varieties and variety of consequences is anything from silly to brutal to cruel to vicious to very nice.

Freewill.... well that still exists.. For example; I am on record as to being not interested in virtually all of the posited Gods.... even if they were entirely provable. They can kill me. Send me somewhere else. But I have no interest in most of those Gods.

[Dr T]

Good thoughts CK. Glad to "see you." I hope all is well.

[CrimsonKairos]

Likewise, Dr. T. :)

[Elphaba]

As I stated, I am not a scientist. But I utterly disagree with you when you put Einstein and Newton's theory along side Evolution. They actually observed and tested their theories.

Newton’s theory of gravity has been tested, but has not been explained. Gravity is still not understood among the world's best physicists. Yet it is still a “theory,” which I have explained to you is not just a guess, but factual in the scientific world. So your comment is wrong, which is not surprising as you do not understand science. Once again, you do not understand science. And because of this, you are not qualified to determine if evolution is a working theory or not.

The TOE is only a bunch of gathered observations and speculations.

No, it is not. It is a theory, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Their is absolutely NO proof that anything whatsoever has EVER evolved from one kind to another. Mutation is not evolution, it is not the addition of info but either the loss of it or the mix up of it.

You have already admitted you are not a scientist. So, if you are not a scientist, what makes you think you are qualified to make these pronouncements?

It doesn’t matter what you’ve read or who you have talked to. Your ignorance of the scientific method precludes you from truly understanding how scientists work, so you would never understand whether there is evidence of evolution or not. Yet you keep insisting there isn’t. You are not a scientist, and you know nothing about how scientists collect evidence and samples. You know nothing about the rigorous testing that is part of the scientific method. You know nothing about the extreme amount of time and effort it takes before scientists are comfortable calling a hypothesis an actual “theory.“

Therefore, you are completely unqualified to lecture anyone on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. You know absolutely nothing about it!

It is not such a far cry to believe that dinosaurs walked with man as it is to believe man was an ape. The fact that you think it is ridiculous to believe such is proof that you have been heavily endoctrinated into the evolutionary belief system. I'm only saying, now that you've learned all their is about it, go do a little creation research and compare the two. That is all the creationist wants, equal access to the human mind.

Your claim that human beings existed and walked on the earth the same time as the dinosaurs is insulting to your fellow Creationists. It is beyond ignorant and defies every single archeologist's claims in the entire world. Yet you think you know better than them?

Again, human beings did not come onto the scene until millions of years later.

I have no idea where you get your information, but you have no critical thinking skills if you believe there were human beings living on earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

You are incredibly gullible. You need to actually read what true scientists have to say about evolution, becase you are not a scientist. You also need to stop assuming the source of these crazy claims, such as human beings walked with the dinosaurs, is reliable, becase I garantee you it is not.

Finally, the following is the most obvious proof that you are not a scientist, and that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. You claimed that evolutionists maintain man came from apes. Only anti-evolutionists go around saying this, and it makes you look ignorant. It is the sure sign of someone who does not know what he's talking about, as no one in the science of evolution says the man came from apes. No one.

I'll let you look up what scientists actually do say about that. But do yourself a favor and don't ever say evolutionists claim man comes from apes again. You only tell everyone around you that you are not a scientist.

Elphaba

[Old Tex]

<div class='quotemain'>The scriptures tell us that G-d does not always create from nothing – for example man was created from dust. Anciently dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value.

What do you mean by "ancient dust?"

How is ancient dust, which you say is worthless, any different from contemporary dust, which is also a worthless?

In other words, is the "ancient dust" Adam was created from any different than the contemporary dust we see today? If that answer is yes, what properties of the "ancient dust" are different?

Elphaba

Perhaps you misread his post. I see nothing in his post about "ancient dust". I see a sentence that said, in effect, that dust, in ancient times, was held as having little value.

[Moksha]

Clearly Scott, many here stake their positions to that of old time religion. How about the adherents of the FSM? Have you evolved your position past that of the Voodoo-Noodlists? And what of your relationship to the great reformer Campbell, whose followers term his work with both chickens and noodles to be, "Umm, umm good"? It has after all been alleged that Campbell retained the cream of the crop.

Finally what of the Northern School and Emmanuel Swedenborg's contribution with this heavenly Swedish Meatballs?

[a-train]

But someone had to have made it at some point. I just can't buy into the theory that God used spare parts. I feel that God is all powerful, and thus can create whatever he likes.

What are your thoughts on this, and are there any clarifications on it? This just doesn't logically make sense.

Spare parts? We don't know that the materials that compose this earth are 'spare parts'. It is not an LDS claim. We only know that the material was pre-existant, but we do not know its history.

God IS all powerful. Now let me ask you this: Is a god having to create something in order to get it any more powerful than a god that needs nothing but already has everything?

Let me try to put it in simpler terms:

Kid A: My Daddy is so rich, he prints his own money.

Kid B: My Daddy is so rich, he doesn't need to print money, he has infinite supply on hand.

Imagine these were actually true. Do the statements reveal which of the fathers is the wealthiest?

What we have is:

Kid A: My god is so powerful he can create something out of nothing.

Kid B: My god is so powerful, he doesn't need to create something from nothing to get it, he has infinite supply on hand.

Does either statement demonstrate which god is more powerful? Can either statement somehow be admitted as evidence for or against the ex nihilo doctrine?

The argument that an ex nihilo view would be supported by the notion that God is all powerful fails to consider that the notion of an all powerful God could just as easily support an eternal nature of God's subjects. This argument that God is all powerful and therefore ex-nihilo must therefore be true is simply deficient.

If we wish to support ex nihilo, we are going to need something a lot better than 'God is all powerful.'

-a-train

[Elphaba]

Perhaps you misread his post. I see nothing in his post about "ancient dust". I see a sentence that said, in effect, that dust, in ancient times, was held as having little value.

Hi Tex,

"Dust, in ancient times," and "Ancient Dust," are the same thing, as is "Anciently, dust. . . " as someone else thought to correct me, which was unecessary, although her sneering attitude was kind of fun.

To explain, let's first start with the word "ancient." If you claim something is "ancient," that is very clear. If it is ancient, then anything newer than ancient is NOT ancient. So, if something existed in "ancient" times, it IS ancient. Perhaps it existed longer than ancient times, but because it did exist IN ancient times, it is still considered "ancient."

Next, the word "dust." Obviously, that's an easy one: "dust" is "dust."

So, since all three variations above contain the word "ancient" as a descriptor of the word "dust," "ancient dust" is a perfectly correct term to use. Let me explain it in a little more detail:

1) "Dust, in ancient times. . . " If it existed in ancient times, it IS ancient. If it was dust, it IS dust. Therefore, it is "ancient dust."

2) "Anciently, dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value." Here we have a complete sentence to work with. There are people who want to focus on the two words "Anciently, dust. . . " And if that were all we had to go on, I might agree. However, since we do have the full sentence, I am not persuaded.

With the complete sentence, we have nothing to indicate the dust being referred to was a substance that existed during any other time period than that during the ancients. All the sentence states is that the "dust" was worthless and had no value "Anciently." With that information, that means "ancient dust." Again, my wording is correct.

Edit: Paragraph removed because I insulted Traveler. My apologies to Traveler. Elphaba

Anyway, my original question remains. If "ancient dust" was worthless and had no value, how is that any different from "modern dust," which is worthless and has no value? If Traveler meant something completely different, what was it?

Elphaba

[Alaskagain]

<div class='quotemain'>Perhaps you misread his post. I see nothing in his post about "ancient dust". I see a sentence that said, in effect, that dust, in ancient times, was held as having little value.

Hi Tex,

"Dust, in ancient times," and "Ancient Dust," are the same thing, as is "Anciently, dust. . . " as someone else thought to correct me, which was unecessary, although her sneering attitude was kind of fun.

To explain, let's first start with the word "ancient." If you claim something is "ancient," that is very clear. If it is ancient, then anything newer than ancient is NOT ancient. So, if something existed in "ancient" times, it IS ancient. Perhaps it existed longer than ancient times, but because it did exist IN ancient times, it is still considered "ancient."

Next, the word "dust." Obviously, that's an easy one: "dust" is "dust."

So, since all three variations above contain the word "ancient" as a descriptor of the word "dust," "ancient dust" is a perfectly correct term to use. Let me explain it in a little more detail:

1) "Dust, in ancient times. . . " If it existed in ancient times, it IS ancient. If it was dust, it IS dust. Therefore, it is "ancient dust."

2) "Anciently, dust meant a substance that is worthless and has no value." Here we have a complete sentence to work with. There are people who want to focus on the two words "Anciently, dust. . . " And if that were all we had to go on, I might agree. However, since we do have the full sentence, I am not persuaded.

With the complete sentence, we have nothing to indicate the dust being referred to was a substance that existed during any other time period than that during the ancients. All the sentence states is that the "dust" was worthless and had no value "Anciently." With that information, that means "ancient dust." Again, my wording is correct.

I find this such a silly excercise, as it's Traveler's writings, and Traveler is notorious for poor sentence structure.

Anyway, my original question remains. If "ancient dust" was worthless and had no value, how is that any different from "modern dust," which is worthless and has no value? If Traveler meant something completely different, what was it?

Elphaba

I was not sneering. I merely saw that you had a question which had not been answered.

<Edited by author: my offensive example of sneering deleted, with apologies to Elphaba>

He didn't mean "Ancient dust", in comparison to "contemporary dust". He meant, "Anciently, the word 'dust'"

You simply didn't pick up on that.

I pointed out what was stated. Logically. I took into consideration that you probably read it in a hurry. Maybe there was another factor, like you were having a bad day. Or your meds were causing blurred vision. Or something. So I simply stated the facts.

You choose to misinterpret what I post regardless of the actual subject matter or intent. There seems to be no way for you to look at any post independently and take it on its own merit, without coloring it with the bias of your experience with other posts on other threads, old or new, on this forum. Posts in one thread usually have nothing at all to do with posts from another thread. They are entirely separate conversations.

But you are right about one thing. This is such a silly exercise.

[Elphaba]

I was not sneering.

Oh no, not at all.

I merely saw that you had a question which had not been answered.

And I still do! Would you mind asking Traveler to please answer the question? You seem to be his interlocutor, and you seem bent on on trying to make me look like an idiot. Fine--go for it. Just answer the question!

What is the difference between ancient dust and modern dust? And if you are going to say "Anciently, dust" is different from "ancient dust," it is not. I've already explained this.

And if you still think there is a difference, do me a favor, and tell me exactly when in the history of the world "dust" wasn't considered worthless? Does that make things clearer for you, Alaskagain?

Please just ask Traveler to answer the question. I sincerely am interested in what he has to say, and am wondering if he is saying there was something different about ancient dust from modern dust. That's all I want to know.

Elphaba

[john doe]

I don't like the direction this thread is going. If you can't at least show a little civility to each other, I am going to recommend that this thread be closed. And warning levels to be raised.

[mmm12345]

<div class='quotemain'>As I stated, I am not a scientist. But I utterly disagree with you when you put Einstein and Newton's theory along side Evolution. They actually observed and tested their theories.

Newton’s theory of gravity has been tested, but has not been explained. Gravity is still not understood among the world's best physicists. Yet it is still a “theory,” which I have explained to you is not just a guess, but factual in the scientific world. So your comment is wrong, which is not surprising as you do not understand science. Once again, you do not understand science. And because of this, you are not qualified to determine if evolution is a working theory or not.

The TOE is only a bunch of gathered observations and speculations.

No, it is not. It is a theory, just as Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Their is absolutely NO proof that anything whatsoever has EVER evolved from one kind to another. Mutation is not evolution, it is not the addition of info but either the loss of it or the mix up of it.

You have already admitted you are not a scientist. So, if you are not a scientist, what makes you think you are qualified to make these pronouncements?

It doesn’t matter what you’ve read or who you have talked to. Your ignorance of the scientific method precludes you from truly understanding how scientists work, so you would never understand whether there is evidence of evolution or not. Yet you keep insisting there isn’t. You are not a scientist, and you know nothing about how scientists collect evidence and samples. You know nothing about the rigorous testing that is part of the scientific method. You know nothing about the extreme amount of time and effort it takes before scientists are comfortable calling a hypothesis an actual “theory.“

Therefore, you are completely unqualified to lecture anyone on whether the theory of evolution is true or not. You know absolutely nothing about it!

It is not such a far cry to believe that dinosaurs walked with man as it is to believe man was an ape. The fact that you think it is ridiculous to believe such is proof that you have been heavily endoctrinated into the evolutionary belief system. I'm only saying, now that you've learned all their is about it, go do a little creation research and compare the two. That is all the creationist wants, equal access to the human mind.

Your claim that human beings existed and walked on the earth the same time as the dinosaurs is insulting to your fellow Creationists. It is beyond ignorant and defies every single archeologist's claims in the entire world. Yet you think you know better than them?

Again, human beings did not come onto the scene until millions of years later.

I have no idea where you get your information, but you have no critical thinking skills if you believe there were human beings living on earth at the same time as the dinosaurs.

You are incredibly gullible. You need to actually read what true scientists have to say about evolution, becase you are not a scientist. You also need to stop assuming the source of these crazy claims, such as human beings walked with the dinosaurs, is reliable, becase I garantee you it is not.

Finally, the following is the most obvious proof that you are not a scientist, and that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about when it comes to evolution. You claimed that evolutionists maintain man came from apes. Only anti-evolutionists go around saying this, and it makes you look ignorant. It is the sure sign of someone who does not know what he's talking about, as no one in the science of evolution says the man came from apes. No one.

I'll let you look up what scientists actually do say about that. But do yourself a favor and don't ever say evolutionists claim man comes from apes again. You only tell everyone around you that you are not a scientist.

Elphaba

After all that I think you need a couple of deep cleansing breaths!