Creationist delusion

[solidsquid]

william said:

there is the possibility that something has caused fluctuations in the rate of decay.

I wish they would carbon date that trex soft tissue they found. but ofcourse if it showed a date that didnt fit their preconcieved ideas they would through out the data. kind of like cognative disonence eh squid?

I would like to see them date it as well. Maybe they will, we'll have to keep watching for information. Also I'll check the article and see if any dating was done on the specimen itself, I've only given it a cursory look over.

[Filter]

justn7 said:

The data that I have agrees very well with Creation. Scientific laws such as The Law of Entropy which says that everything tends toward disorder rather than order stands in opposition to evolution - nothing improves over time.

Entropy is for a closed system. One could argue that with systems that contain items that can live, reproduce and die - that the system is not improving on a whole at all - it is just becoming more diverse. That diversity spawns more failures that successes. BUT, when you only look at what survives and flourishes, then sure, it looks like it is constantly improving (of course ego-centric man would think so!!).

If you were to have preserved all of natures failures (and not allowed any to decompose and benefit other living entities) - then you would not consider her to improve anything, but rather to have created a lot of trash.

This is just another way to look at things. This is not by any means a serious discussion...

[justn7]

Ok, we've gone back and forth presenting data supporting both sides. Let's see if we can find agreement on something. My model of the beginning of the universe is unscientific. It cannot be observed, tested or reproduced. I have to believe on faith, based on the evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it.

Your model of the beginning of the universe is also unscientific. It cannot be observed, tested or reproduced. You have to believe on faith, based on the evidence you have that there was once nothing, and then there was everything.

I realize that I have oversimplified both points of view.

I think, though, that there has been an unfair representation as of late that Cosmic, Stellar and Organic Evolution are somehow scientific, while Intelligent Design is not.

[solidsquid]

justn7 said:

Ok, we've gone back and forth presenting data supporting both sides. Let's see if we can find agreement on something. My model of the beginning of the universe is unscientific. It cannot be observed, tested or reproduced. I have to believe on faith, based on the evidence I have that God created the universe and everything in it.

Your model of the beginning of the universe is also unscientific. It cannot be observed, tested or reproduced. You have to believe on faith, based on the evidence you have that there was once nothing, and then there was everything.

I realize that I have oversimplified both points of view.

I think, though, that there has been an unfair representation as of late that Cosmic, Stellar and Organic Evolution are somehow scientific, while Intelligent Design is not.

Okay, listen...the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the veracity of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with the change in allele frequencies of living organisms over time, that's it. So by bringing up the origin of the universe, you are in no way arguing against evolutionary theory. Do you understand? Furthermore, you are using a logical fallacy known as equivocation of the word evolution in doing such.

[Filter]

justn7 said:

I think, though, that there has been an unfair representation as of late that Cosmic, Stellar and Organic Evolution are somehow scientific, while Intelligent Design is not.

We are complex, yes; but products of a wondrous God? And what of the species that will certainly usurp us? You know that bacteria are -- and always have been -- the dominant forms of life on Earth? If there is a God, and He has an interest in life - He seems to be more interested in the tiniest of creatures.... ;D

I only make this point because the argument of Intelligent Design really requires an obsession with mankind being some kind of great "product". Theists have little interest in what came before man. But to those who study what the Earth reveals -- we just showed up a few seconds ago.

[william]

Filter said:

We are complex, yes; but products of a wondrous God? And what of the species that will certainly usurp us? You know that bacteria are -- and always have been -- the dominant forms of life on Earth? If there is a God, and He has an interest in life - He seems to be more interested in the tiniest of creatures.... ;D

I only make this point because the argument of Intelligent Design really requires an obsession with mankind being some kind of great "product". Theists have little interest in what came before man. But to those who study what the Earth reveals -- we just showed up a few seconds ago.

I guess if you mean by dominant, you mean population size. but if I had a choice Id rather be human, sexual reproduction rocks!

[solidsquid]

william said:

...sexual reproduction rocks!

I second that. ;D

[chaplin25]

despite popular belief...most christians or creationists are not stupid at all...many in the field of biology, astronomy etc...hold to a firm belief in creation of various religions...it's just for some people life without a belief network is unpalatable. i thought that way at one point....but realized there are irrational rules to live by....
delusional? a little i think...but i really dont think my world view is all that "realistic either" considering i dont know squat about the universe or it's goings on....my assuptions about life are as much so a belief crutch...i do know there is NO ONE above us telling us how to live though....so i make up my own beliefs and then live by them...smae with religion throughtout the ages...its just i dont live a by a certian majority sect commonly reffered to as "religion"

[william]

solidsquid said:

Okay, listen...the origin of the universe has nothing to do with the veracity of evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory deals with the change in allele frequencies of living organisms over time, that's it. So by bringing up the origin of the universe, you are in no way arguing against evolutionary theory. Do you understand? Furthermore, you are using a logical fallacy known as equivocation of the word evolution in doing such.

Im not sure if Im equivocating or not, but I think what happens is we creationists tend to considder evolutionary theory as merely one thread of an aposing tappastry. and we tend to atack the whole instead of taking it apart thread by thread. I have a series of debates on evolution and I noticed that when the creationist brings up the origin of the first self replicateing life and the evolutionist will counter with something like" Im here to debate evolution". we see these as tied together.

[william]

Filter said:

Entropy is for a closed system. One could argue that with systems that contain items that can live, reproduce and die - that the system is not improving on a whole at all - it is just becoming more diverse. That diversity spawns more failures that successes. BUT, when you only look at what survives and flourishes, then sure, it looks like it is constantly improving (of course ego-centric man would think so!!).

If you were to have preserved all of natures failures (and not allowed any to decompose and benefit other living entities) - then you would not consider her to improve anything, but rather to have created a lot of trash.

This is just another way to look at things. This is not by any means a serious discussion...

so what enters the system that overcomes entropy? with organisms that live and reproduce? I guess if it were a serious discusion you would tell us how they got here?

[solidsquid]

william said:

Im not sure if Im equivocating or not, but I think what happens is we creationists tend to considder evolutionary theory as merely one thread of an aposing tappastry. and we tend to atack the whole instead of taking it apart thread by thread. I have a series of debates on evolution and I noticed that when the creationist brings up the origin of the first self replicateing life and the evolutionist will counter with something like" Im here to debate evolution". we see these as tied together.

That's where the problem lies. The theory itself is not concerned with how life arose (in the confines of what it deals with). Not to say it isn't concerned as it may impact biology. However, evolutionary theory is distinctly concerned with life and it's changes over time or as some like to more technically say, "change in allele frequencies over time".

The theory of abiogenesis is the theory of how life arose from organic molecules.

The easiest way to think of it is:

Abiogenesis----> how organic molecules produced life...at that point it stops.

Evolution----->starts with life and then how it changes with time. The starting point is the first living organism where abiogenesis stops.

Also many people will use the term evolution in the sense of simple change which can be applied to many things. In the scientific sense as applied to the theory it only deals with the change of organisms over time.

Evolution is any process of growth or development that entails change, but most commonly refers to biological evolution. The theory of evolution is the single unifying paradigm of biology – the current consensus among biologists is that modern life is the result of an extensive process of evolution that began several billion years ago with simple single-celled organisms. While the idea of biological evolution has existed for thousands of years, it only developed a scientific foundation in the middle of the 19th century. As the theory of evolution has become more widely accepted, it has displaced other explanations for the origins and diversity of life, such as spontaneous generation of complex organisms and creationsism. Often the word evolution is used as shorthand for the modern theory of evolution of species based upon Darwin’s idea of natural selection.


The current dominant theory of evolution is known as the "modern evolutionary synthesis" (or simply "modern synthesis"), referring to the synthesis of Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection and Mendel’s theory of the gene. Within this theory, evolution may be defined as the change in the frequency of an allele within a gene pool, caused by natural selection and/or genetic drift. Such changes over long periods of time lead to major changes in phenotype. According to this theory, the fundamental event of speciation is the genetic isolation of two populations, which allows their gene pools to diverge. Since the modern synthesis, biological evolution has been defined as changes in allele frequencies in a population from one generation to another.

From - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia: Evolution

[william]

Am I wrong to asume that if you believe in an expanding universe and in evolution, that abiogenisis becomes a crucial element.

[solidsquid]

william said:

Am I wrong to asume that if you believe in an expanding universe and in evolution, that abiogenisis becomes a crucial element.

Not necessarily. Some people still hold to the panspermia hypothesis and exogenesis. And some hold both (abiogenesis and one of the others) as a possibility. Even abiogenesis has some subunits to it as well.

However, adherence to one doesn't necessitate adherence to the others.

[william]

solidsquid said:

Not necessarily. Some people still hold to the panspermia hypothesis and exogenesis. And some hold both (abiogenesis and one of the others) as a possibility. Even abiogenesis has some subunits to it as well.

However, adherence to one doesn't necessitate adherence to the others.

is one of those where ET planted us here so he could come back a few thousand years latter and harvest us for food?

[GodsAreUs]

william said:

is one of those where ET planted us here so he could come back a few thousand years latter and harvest us for food?

It'd be ironic if that were true. Imagine: a still unknown combination of brain chemicals produced only by believers would act as a homing device the aliens would use to target and tractor-beam them all off the planet. They'd think it was the rapture!

Imagine if they absconded with followers of all faiths? Can you picture the horror on the faces of the far-right Bushies as they jostled with muslims/jews/catholics on the way up? Priceless!

Of course that would certainly alter the timbre of discourse on this forum. How? I don't know. Let’s discuss.