• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

The "Theory" of Evolution vs. "Creationism"

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
I had a huge post that didn't make it onto the board. NUTS!

Anyway, long story short.

The Theory of Evolution is not taught as fact in science classes. The very title "Theory" denotes that the Theory of Evolution is a work in progress.

Creationism does not require proof since it is based on faith and if you could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith anymore.

If a creator was proven to exist, scientist would try to figure out how it all happened.

By studying creation myths, we are able to better understand civilizations (including our own) therefore creationism has it's place.

In a well rounded liberal arts education, both evolution and creationism get the same amount of air time, but they don't end up in the same class.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
LiberalFINGER said:
The Theory of Evolution is not taught as fact in science classes. The very title "Theory" denotes that the Theory of Evolution is a work in progress.

Creationism does not require proof since it is based on faith and if you could prove it, then it wouldn't be faith anymore.

If a creator was proven to exist, scientist would try to figure out how it all happened.

By studying creation myths, we are able to better understand civilizations (including our own) therefore creationism has it's place.

In a well rounded liberal arts education, both evolution and creationism get the same amount of air time, but they don't end up in the same class.
Which brings us back to my question. If science is supposed to teach scietific facts (which are able to be proven), then why should we teach evolution in a science class?

I agree, and have argued that they should receive equal air time, but can you tell me somewhere that they do?
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
LiberalFINGER said:
The Theory of Evolution is not taught as fact in science classes. The very title "Theory" denotes that the Theory of Evolution is a work in progress.
At the risk of beating a dead missing link...The full name of Darwin's theory is The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection"

It's the "natural selection" part that was theoretical. It was Darwin's attempt to explain the observable fact of evolution. So the theory is natural selection, not evolution.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
If science is supposed to teach scietific facts (which are able to be proven), then why should we teach evolution in a science class?
Fact: Snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones and vestigial legs.
Fact: Human embryos exhibit gill slits and tails.
Fact: Men have nipples.
Fact: Successive generations of viruses develop resistance to drugs over time.
Fact: A whale's "fins" are modified legs, and exhibit the same basic bone structure as the human hand.
Fact: Women menstrate according to the lunar cycle.
Fact: Bird feathers are modified scales.
Fact: plants and animals adapt to their environment.
Fact: There are flightless birds.
Fact: There are mammals that swim in the ocean and sea creatures that crawl on land.
Fact: Frogs and toads begin life as tad poles swimming in water, then grow legs and hop around on land.
Fact: The fossil record shows an evolution of species from simpler common creatures to more complex, specialized and varied creatures over time.

What theory best explains these amazing facts? The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection hands down.

bryanf said:
I agree, and have argued that they should receive equal air time, but can you tell me somewhere that they do?
In college I took a "Bible as Literature" class. It was in the English department. We learned that the Bible, the "literal Word of God" has two different creation myths, one where Adam is created first, the other where he's created last. (Hmm, maybe God couldn't remember.) I also took a biology class from the science department, where we studied Darwin's "Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection."

Literature in the English Department, science in the science department. As it should be.
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat,

I think you're basically, as you put it, beating a dead missing link. Religion is based on faith. Science is not. You're never going to convince a certain percentage of people to put emotionally learned subjects aside and look at the issues based solely on the evidence. Religion has a long history of skewing and or misrepresenting the facts, evidence and logic to fit it's agenda. Or maybe the sun really does revolve around the earth, the earth is flat and approx. 6,000 years old. And, despite all the evidence to the contrary, maybe the Roman and Greek empires fell because of their exceptance of homosexuals. Could be true, right?
 
Last edited:

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
I'd have to side with LiberalFinger on this one. Creationism has no basis in fact. I personally like the Chinese creation story. Pan gu uses his big axe to burst out of an egg...well, anyway, I think we should teach that because axes are fun.

But seriously, keep Creationism out of Science class. And I hate the "Irredicibly Complex" argument. It's a farce. Let me explain to you something about that. You see the idea is that in the lowest form of life, one part could not function without the other. However, that goes on the basis that there was not a predecessor to that lifeform and those parts were to grow off the old ones (evolution).

I personally think the deist outlook is the best. Where God sets the ball rolling. However, religion...well religion itself is a creation of the mind. I'm not an atheist, but I really think religion was created by man to deal with the "problems" in their lives. Why do you think this movement away from religion has caused people to find other alternatives to God? (depression drugs,etc.)

Will we ever know the answer to the question of God? Hell no. So believe what you want, because in the end, we all die. It's up to you to decide how you want to live your life and what you want to believe will happen to you after it. Everybody wants to live forever, I guess thats why religion is founded on that princible.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Okay, I just want to explain my objections to your evidence on what seems, to me, to be logical grounds. Try to understand where I'm coming from. I'm a very literal person with a strong background in math and science (engineering, though I'm also preparing to go into law) who likes to have things cut and dry. It has to make sense before I will accept it. These are a few of the thoughts that I have on the evidence that you've mentioned:

argexpat said:
Fact: Snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones and vestigial legs.
This one's a tough one, but the Bible talks about God causing the serpent to have to crawl on his belly (after causing Adam and Eve to sin), implying that He would have then altered the serpent at that point. Which would be allowable to one who holds the view of intelligent design.

Are there stages of snakes with very short legs before they dropped to just vestigial legs?

Fact: Human embryos exhibit gill slits and tails.
As do tadpoles, though they go away after they become frogs, it's part of a developmental process of the individual being, not a genetic trait.

Fact: Men have nipples.
This is true of all the mammels that I know of, that both the males and females have nipples.

Fact: Successive generations of viruses develop resistance to drugs over time.
Humans develop resistance to disease (or drugs) over time, yet, we are still humans. Thousands of years of adaptation to drugs and disease, and we are the same species that existed thousands of years ago.

Fact: A whale's "fins" are modified legs, and exhibit the same basic bone structure as the human hand.
As humans, whales are mammals, and the bone structure is one of the things that is common among most mammals, along with live birth, nursing their young, and nipples on both the males and females :) .

Fact: Women menstrate according to the lunar cycle.
Dogs menstruate annually, and rats menstruate every 5 days, on average. What does all that prove?

Fact: Bird feathers are modified scales.
Yet, they are hollow, are shaped differently, and serve a very different purpose. Are they based on scales because of the way that they are attached to the skin? That's the only similarity that I see.

Fact: plants and animals adapt to their environment.
Yes, it's a matter of survival, but they are born with all the physical capabilities to adapt. A dog, for example, will grow a particularly thick coat of fur to cope with a cold winter, while they will shed it for the hotter "dog days" of summer.

Fact: There are flightless birds.
And flying fish, yet the flightless birds are still birds, and the flying fish are still fish. Are you using these as transitional species? Why is it that these still exist, then, while other transitional species apparently only existed between the critters in the fossil record.

Fact: There are mammals that swim in the ocean and sea creatures that crawl on land.
But, they share the characteristics of mammals and sea creatures, respectively. Whales still have to have air to breath (they don't breath through gills), while the sea creatures still have to have air from water to breath.

Fact: Frogs and toads begin life as tad poles swimming in water, then grow legs and hop around on land.
Again, these are developmental stages, not evolutionary stages.

Fact: The fossil record shows an evolution of species from simpler common creatures to more complex, specialized and varied creatures over time.
You refer here to simpler creatures in earlier strata of fossils, and more complex organisms in more recent. Yet, there are still lacking those stages in between. Why are there not adult humans who had gills, or bird who had regular scales, or cows who are half whale? These are the types of fossils that I would expect if we truly evolved over time, that I have not seen.

In college I took a "Bible as Literature" class...
Is that option available to elementary or high school kids, and is evolution an option?
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
Okay, I just want to explain my objections to your evidence on what seems, to me, to be logical grounds. Try to understand where I'm coming from. I'm a very literal person with a strong background in math and science (engineering, though I'm also preparing to go into law) who likes to have things cut and dry. It has to make sense before I will accept it. These are a few of the thoughts that I have on the evidence that you've mentioned:

argexpat said:
Fact: Snakes have rudimentary pelvic bones and vestigial legs.
This one's a tough one, but the Bible talks about God causing the serpent to have to crawl on his belly (after causing Adam and Eve to sin), implying that He would have then altered the serpent at that point. Which would be allowable to one who holds the view of intelligent design.

Are there stages of snakes with very short legs before they dropped to just vestigial legs?

Fact: Human embryos exhibit gill slits and tails.
As do tadpoles, though they go away after they become frogs, it's part of a developmental process of the individual being, not a genetic trait.

Fact: Men have nipples.
This is true of all the mammels that I know of, that both the males and females have nipples.

Fact: Successive generations of viruses develop resistance to drugs over time.
Humans develop resistance to disease (or drugs) over time, yet, we are still humans. Thousands of years of adaptation to drugs and disease, and we are the same species that existed thousands of years ago.

Fact: A whale's "fins" are modified legs, and exhibit the same basic bone structure as the human hand.
As humans, whales are mammals, and the bone structure is one of the things that is common among most mammals, along with live birth, nursing their young, and nipples on both the males and females :) .

Fact: Women menstrate according to the lunar cycle.
Dogs menstruate annually, and rats menstruate every 5 days, on average. What does all that prove?

Fact: Bird feathers are modified scales.
Yet, they are hollow, are shaped differently, and serve a very different purpose. Are they based on scales because of the way that they are attached to the skin? That's the only similarity that I see.

Fact: plants and animals adapt to their environment.
Yes, it's a matter of survival, but they are born with all the physical capabilities to adapt. A dog, for example, will grow a particularly thick coat of fur to cope with a cold winter, while they will shed it for the hotter "dog days" of summer.

Fact: There are flightless birds.
And flying fish, yet the flightless birds are still birds, and the flying fish are still fish. Are you using these as transitional species? Why is it that these still exist, then, while other transitional species apparently only existed between the critters in the fossil record.

Fact: There are mammals that swim in the ocean and sea creatures that crawl on land.
But, they share the characteristics of mammals and sea creatures, respectively. Whales still have to have air to breath (they don't breath through gills), while the sea creatures still have to have air from water to breath.

Fact: Frogs and toads begin life as tad poles swimming in water, then grow legs and hop around on land.
Again, these are developmental stages, not evolutionary stages.

Fact: The fossil record shows an evolution of species from simpler common creatures to more complex, specialized and varied creatures over time.
You refer here to simpler creatures in earlier strata of fossils, and more complex organisms in more recent. Yet, there are still lacking those stages in between. Why are there not adult humans who had gills, or bird who had regular scales, or cows who are half whale? These are the types of fossils that I would expect if we truly evolved over time, that I have not seen.

Can you see where I'm coming from, or are you just convinced that I'm a religious bigot, who arbitratily denies evolution?
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Which brings us back to my question. If science is supposed to teach scietific facts (which are able to be proven), then why should we teach evolution in a science class?


I'm a very literal person with a strong background in math and science (engineering, though I'm also preparing to go into law) who likes to have things cut and dry.
Ok. Now we know a little bit of your background wich may actually be helpful.

Since you have a degree in engineering, I can assume that you've taken some physics and chemistry on a college level. From these experiences, you should know that the first few rounds of science is nothing more than ingraining the scientific method into your head and covering all of the things that we're "Pretty sure" about. From there, we get into the really nasty brain teaser stuff, things that we suspect may be going on, things that we theorise about, things that we might or might not disprove.

Engineering is heavy in physics, but in underclassman studies it really sticks to the things that we are able to predict with certainty. Look at graduate level physics. Bend your brain around some Stephen Hawking sometime and tell me that it's all verifiable fact. Sure, we can find evidence that it's all accurate, but when was the last time you visited a black hole?

Chemistry is the same way. We know that metal + acid lets off hydrogen gas. That's verifiable and it's taught in middle school science class, but what happens when you start getting into atomic theory.

Science is a progressive study and a good scientist is also a natural skeptic. I wouldn't give you a plumb nickel for any "scientist" that stood up and said that the Theory of Evolution was 100% accurate and could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

A true scientists will tell you that even the absolutes are subject to change given the correct conditions.

IT BOILS DOWN TO THIS:

Science studies things that Can or cannot be disproven, but not necesarily only the things that have been proven already.
 

heyjoeo

Active member
Joined
Oct 31, 2004
Messages
380
Reaction score
1
Bryan, most of those examples prove micro-evolution. (change of gene frequency inside of a species). What that means is the species doesn't change, but the makeup on the inside does.

The problem of no transition species. Well let's look at the Cambrian explosion. A large amount of fossils were found in the Cambrian era. Let's theorize for a second and maybe these soft shelled organisms that couldn't make fossils were the transitional organisms you strive to find?

A theory is just a theory, I'm just throwing that one out there.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
Can you see where I'm coming from, or are you just convinced that I'm a religious bigot, who arbitratily denies evolution?
bryanf, you're killing me, dude!

I see exactly where you're coming from: you arbitrarily deny evolution because it contradicts your religious beliefs. Am I close?

P.S. Why would God create flightless birds? Why? WHY???
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
It's called devine humor. It can be found in other creations.

Military Intelligence
Conservative Democrats
Ross Perot
and the Duck Billed Platypus


(oh for the love of god, don't take me serious.)
 

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
LiberalFINGER said:
It's called devine humor. It can be found in other creations.

Military Intelligence
Conservative Democrats
Ross Perot
and the Duck Billed Platypus


(oh for the love of god, don't take me serious.)
Much like Jumbo Shrimp, a Baby Grand and compassionate conservatives?
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
argexpat said:
bryanf, you're killing me, dude!

I see exactly where you're coming from: you arbitrarily deny evolution because it contradicts your religious beliefs. Am I close?

P.S. Why would God create flightless birds? Why? WHY???
No, I deny evolution because it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how people can look at the evidence at our disposal and arbitrarily say that this is what happened, when the evidence doesn't have strong indications that that is, indeed, what happened.

Why create flightless mammals? Why not? Why should God be limited in his creation? Heck, why did he create ducks? Why did he create baboons? Because he could. Yes, my religious beliefs help creationism make sense to me, but that is not the reason that I deny evolution. Were it not for my religious beliefs, I don't know that I would be convinced of anything regarding the origin of species.

I think that both of them are matters of faith, and personal belief. I happen to have more faith in intelligent design than in evolution.

Until you can prove that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in not true, I have no reason to believe that the disorder of the primordial soup could become the order that is required for complex life. Order cannot come from disorder without some outside influence.

That's one of the basic things that I have learned in my study of science, and it is the biggest obstruction to my acceptance of evolution on scientific merit. The absence of transitory species only adds to my skepticism.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
No, I deny evolution because it doesn't make any sense to me. I don't see how people can look at the evidence at our disposal and arbitrarily say that this is what happened, when the evidence doesn't have strong indications that that is, indeed, what happened.
Luckily, evolution doesn't have to make sense to you, it has to make sense to scientists, which it does. Believing the fairy tales in the Bible to be literally true doesn't make any sense to me, yet that's not a reason to stop teaching them in Sunday school.

bryanf said:
I think that both of them are matters of faith, and personal belief. I happen to have more faith in intelligent design than in evolution.
I said it before, and I'll say it again. The only article of faith in science is in the scientific method. Science is the exact opposite of faith.

"The scientific method has evolved over many centuries and has now come to be described in terms of a well-recognized and well-defined series of steps. First, information, or data, is gathered by careful observation of the phenomenon being studied. On the basis of that information a preliminary generalization, or hypothesis, is formed, usually by inductive reasoning, and this in turn leads by deductive logic to a number of implications that may be tested by further observations and experiments (see induction ; deduction ). If the conclusions drawn from the original hypothesis successfully meet all these tests, the hypothesis becomes accepted as a scientific theory or law; if additional facts are in disagreement with the hypothesis, it may be modified or discarded in favor of a new hypothesis, which is then subjected to further tests. Even an accepted theory may eventually be overthrown if enough contradictory evidence is found, as in the case of Newtonian mechanics, which was shown after more than two centuries of acceptance to be an approximation valid only for speeds much less than that of light."

If you don't have faith in the scientific method, then science will never prove anything to you. And to deny the scientific method is to deny science itself.

bryanf said:
Until you can prove that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in not true, I have no reason to believe that the disorder of the primordial soup could become the order that is required for complex life.
Interesting how you use one product of scientific reasoning to try to discredit another. You use it when it suites you, and deny it when it doesn't. This is yet another example of the arbitrary and knowingly unattainable standard "ceationists" apply only to evolution in order to discredit it.

bryanf said:
Order cannot come from disorder without some outside influence.
This is an assumption on your part. It could very well be that evolution is the process of chaos unfolding. A light bulb burns brightest just before it burns out.

The problem with creationists is that they confuse truth with fact. There is truth in the Bible (as well as a lot of silly rubbish), as there is in all mythologies. But when you believe a mythology to be literally true, it saps it of any meaning, because rather than ponder the truth uncovered by the symbolism, creationists must "prove" the myth to be true, and thus become mired in a quagmire of convoluted logic and circular reasoning. They can't see the forrest for the trees. The mythology in the Bible is true metaphorically, as a vehicle not for the processing of facts, but for deriving meaning from the human experience.
 

LiberalFINGER

Active member
Joined
Jul 21, 2004
Messages
261
Reaction score
5
Until you can prove that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in not true, I have no reason to believe that the disorder of the primordial soup could become the order that is required for complex life. Order cannot come from disorder without some outside influence.
You have answered your own question.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics only becomes a problem when applied in a closed system. We are not discussing a closed system here, nor have we ever said that we were.

We are not arguing the existance of God here. We are arguing whether or not scientific theories should be taught in school, specifically the Theory of Evolution.

Bryan, Let me put this to you.

Would you have the ability to engage in intelligent debate regarding creationism if you hadn't been educated in regards to evolution?

Frankly, if you hadn't studied physics, you wouldn't have known that there was debate in the scientific community regarding the roles of entropy in biology.

If you hadn't studied evolution, you would have BLINDLY bought into creationism and wouldn't have a logical leg to stand on.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
Until you can prove that the 2nd law of thermodynamics in not true, I have no reason to believe that the disorder of the primordial soup could become the order that is required for complex life. Order cannot come from disorder without some outside influence.
Doesn't the resurrection of Jesus violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not to mention practically every other law of nature? In fact, that's the definition of a miracle, is that it violates the laws of nature. Turning water into wine, raising Lazarus from death, giving sight to the blind, feeding thousands with one fish and a loaf of bread...all these miracles violate the laws of nature which you cite in order to discredit evolution. Yet one of the tenets of Christianity is a belief in these very miracles.

But if you take all these "miracles" metaphorically, rather than literally, there's no need to square them with science. Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection symbolizes the possibility of our own spiritual death and rebirth. (Taken metaphorically, even "born again" Christianity can have meaning for an agnostic like me: in my intellectual and spiritual evolution I have died and been reborn many times.) Jesus as the son of God symbolizes the brotherhood of Man. (Are we not all the children of God?) The miracle of the virgin birth symbolizes purity, fecundity, the universal womb from which we are all born. That's the beauty of a symbol, it can stand for whatever we want, in whatever way derives meaning for us. Only as metaphor does Biblical mythology have any true meaning, and Christians who take it literally are missing the whole point of Christianity and, ultimately, of religion itself.
 
Last edited:

Pacridge

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 14, 2004
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
9
Location
Pacific Northwest US
argexpat said:
Doesn't the resurrection of Jesus violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not to mention practically every other law of nature? In fact, that's the definition of a miracle, is that it violates the laws of nature. Turning water into wine, raising Lazarus from death, giving sight to the blind, feeding thousands with one fish and a loaf of bread...all these miracles violate the laws of nature which you cite in order to discredit evolution. Yet one of the tenets of Christianity is a belief in these very miracles.

But if you take all these "miracles" metaphorically, rather than literally, there's no need to square them with science. Jesus's crucifixion and resurrection symbolizes the possibility of our own spiritual death and rebirth. Jesus as the son of God symbolizes the brotherhood of Man. (Are we not all the children of God?) The miracle of the virgin birth symbolizes purity, fecundity, the universal womb of which we are all born. That's the beauty of a symbol, it can stand for whatever we want, in whatever way derives meaning for us. Only as metaphor does Biblical mythology have any true meaning, and Christians who take it literally are missing the whole point of Christianity and religion itself.
Are you trying to tell me that the Bible may not be a point by point factual historic accounting of events? That it may in fact be full of symbolism? I for one am shocked, just shocked.
 

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
argexpat said:
Doesn't the resurrection of Jesus violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics, not to mention practically every other law of nature? In fact, that's the definition of a miracle, is that it violates the laws of nature. Turning water into wine, raising Lazarus from death, giving sight to the blind, feeding thousands with one fish and a loaf of bread...all these miracles violate the laws of nature which you cite in order to discredit evolution. Yet one of the tenets of Christianity is a belief in these very miracles.

On the contrary, these miracles are the evidence of an outside influence, don't you think? The outside influence which is required for disorder to become order, according to the laws of nature.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
bryanf said:
On the contrary, these miracles are the evidence of an outside influence, don't you think? The outside influence which is required for disorder to become order, according to the laws of nature.
This is circular reasoning (and a prime example of the intellectual purgatory that is "creationism"). Miracles are "evidence" of God, yet the only evidence for these miracles is that they are written down in the Bible. You're using something that is unprovable to prove something that is unprovable. There's no there there. This is part of your convoluted argument for denying the validity of evolution. And you would only need to deny evolution if you take the Bible literally, which, as I explained earlier, is sheer madness. Does the Bible have to be literally true to be meaningful? Did Jesus have to literally rise from the dead for his teaching to be valid?

When you take the Bible literally, you remove it from the divine into the profane, like an angel turned mortal. In other words, you kill it. And while Christians futily debate how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, the work of the Lord goes wanting.
 
Last edited:

bryanf

Member
Joined
Dec 5, 2004
Messages
80
Reaction score
1
Location
The great battleground state of Ohio
I fail to see how this is circular reasoning. If the Bible is purely figurative, then the 2nd law of thermodynamics would not be at all relevant, and your original question would be baseless. As for miracles, they still happen today. I used to have very poor vision, and had extremely thick glasses to see clearly, but about 6 years ago, they were healed. It wasn't a slow process, or anything like that, it was instantaneous. I no longer wear glasses or contacts and can see as well or better than people who have never worn glasses. What explanation does evolution give for this? Creation provides a Creator who can still do things like that.

Back to literality/figurativity of the Bible, if something is not physical, then physical laws do not apply. I believe that the Bible is both literal and figurative, and that these miracles would be consistent with the 2nd law, because there would be an outside influence causing them, as I believe that there was in my case.

To answer your question about the literality of the Bible. It doesn't have to be literal to be meaningful, but the fact that there are literal portions adds to its meaning in the hearts of many Christians. This is because they see how the literal relates to the figurative, or vice versa.

There are many portions of the Bible that are literal that are verifiable by other sources, and some that are not. Unfortunately, the beginning is one of the latter. We don't have other sources that say what God created on the first day, and if that "day" was really a day, or if it was a thousand years, or a million years. This is why this debate continues on as it has for over a century and a half. Neither side can prove without question that they are right, and the other is wrong.

Unlike the laws of physics, or material properties, or chemical reactions, there is no universal acceptance in science of the commonly accepted theory of evolution. Those who believe in Creation might be a small minority, and they may be discredited, as you have tried to do, merely by accusations of them trying to merely rationalize science to fit their beliefs (throwing out the scietific method), and that they are not true scientists, but that doesn't change the fact that they still believe in Creation, and they are still part of the scietific community.
 

argexpat

Active member
Joined
Nov 17, 2004
Messages
460
Reaction score
8
Location
I was there, now I'm here
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's great news about your eye sight. It doesn't prove the occurance of a miracle, though. First, there could be a valid medical explanation for it. Maybe you had a condition that cleared up? Second, I have to take your word for it, just like you have to take the word of Biblical authors for the miracles that supposedly occurred. Third, miracles are in the eye of the beholder (in your case literally), they are inherently subjective. One man's miracle is another man's unverifiable anectode. (UFO's anyone?) The only objective way to prove the occurance of a miracle is through the scientific method. But because a miracle is by its very nature a violation of the laws of nature, it can't be proved by science. (As Hume noted, if a miracle is defined as a phenomenon that violates the laws of nature, and such a phenomenon is documented, then the laws of nature will be augmented to include that phenomenon, thereby invalidating its status as a miracle. In otherwords, there can be no scienticially verifiable existance of a super natural phenomena, only phenomena that is not explained by the accepted laws of nature...whew!)

This is an issue of epistemology, how do you know what you know? And the problem with your epistemology is that you're mixing abstract metaphysical argumentation with hard science, which is a system of rational analysis of empirical data.

Again, if you want to argue that evolution should be nixed from the school cirriculum because it contradicts your religious beliefs, please argue that. But if, as you claim, you're rejecting evolution because it doesn't pass muster as a scientific theory, all you need do is follow the requirements of the scientific method and propose an alternative theory that better explains the empirical data. If that alternative theory is "creationism" you can publish it in a reputable scientific journal and expose it to peer review. Warning: Because this not only contradicts a valid, universally accepted theory but discredits an entire branch of science, expect to be savaged (and very likely laughed at) by other scientists, who are required by the scientific method to be highly skeptical, especially of such a paradigm shift. If, after your fellow scientists have finished tearing your theory apart, it still holds water, evolution will be either augmented to include the new theory, or scrapped altogether and replaced by it.

This sounds daunting, I know, but it's been done before. Copernicus [http://encyclopedia.com/html/C/Copernc-sy.asp], after observing the movement of the stars, theorized that, contrary to the widely accepted theory, the Earth actually revolved around the sun. This new theory didn't receive a warm welcome from the established authorities of his day, namely the Catholic Church. In fact the teaching of it was banned for many years and those who taught it subjected to harch intimidation. Ultimately, rational thought prevailed, and now this heliocentric "theory" is accepted as fact.

Thank God for the scientific method!
 
Last edited:

liberal1

Member
Joined
Jan 7, 2005
Messages
158
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
I agree with you that there probably was an evolution that made human beings become what they are today. I also believe that Church and Education values should be seperated. It would only brainwash people to the theory of a god. Buddhist kids like me and others would waste our time at school if Creationism is taught in schools.
 

KBeta

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Location
Seattle, WA
A very good friend who was my roommate while he was working on his PhD in theoretical physics once told me that one of the unwritten laws of physics is, “That which is not expressly forbidden is compulsory.” In other words, unless there is a damned good reason why something will not happen, probability demands that given enough time it will happen. That’s evolution in a nutshell. All you need is a lot of time, and a lot of time has passed on this rock we call earth. As James Hutton, the father of modern geology, famously said of the earth, it shows “no vestige of a beginning, no prospect of an end.”

The earth formed 4.56 billion years ago (Ba). During its accretionary period the earth was being bombarded with a large number of meteorite and comet impacts. Those impacts have continued with decreasing frequency to this day. It has been discovered that some basic amino acids exist in comets. Therefore, the basic building blocks of life have existed on earth virtually from the very beginning.

Below there are 4,560 lines. Each line represents one million years. I’ve color coded them to correspond to important periods or instants of time.

IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII

No noticeable life.
Non-cellular life only.
Prokaryotic cells (cells w/o a nucleus).
First indication of sexual reproduction.
Eukaryotic cells (cells with a nucleus) and multicellular organisms and invertebrates.
Vertebrates.
Age of dinosaurs.
Mammals dominant.
First primates.
Most recent ice age. Homo Erectus.

To look at what we call history, you need only consider the very last line. The last line has been split up into the lines below. Each one of these lines represents 1,000 years.

IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII IIIIIIIIII

Fire harnessed.
Neanderthal.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens.
Neanderthal goes extinct.
First signs of agriculture.
First cities.
Iron Age begins.
Greek civilization rises/falls, Roman civilization rises/falls, Christ born.
Pretty much everything else you can think of.


 

KBeta

New member
Joined
Dec 29, 2004
Messages
36
Reaction score
1
Location
Seattle, WA
Continued from previous post...

Okay, so what the hell was the point of this little exercise? The point is to show that there has been plenty of time for things to happen on their own without the guiding hand of any manner of deity. To invoke a deity to explain anything exhibits, IMHO, a profound lack of understanding of nature, probability, and an even more profound lack of imagination. Certainly there are circumstances and occurrences that defy scientific explanation. However, to simplistically dub them “an act of God” is merely a game of one-upmanship, and holds no virtue over the playground taunt of “I know something you don’t know.”

The Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary defines science as ”the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities.” God is a metaphysical concept and, therefore, by the very definition of science has nothing to do with scientific study. If you can’t observe it, measure it, or conduct experiments on it then it isn’t science. It’s philosophy. Creationism is philosophy and has no business in a science class. Evolution is a theory which has been observed, measured, and experimented upon. Evolution is science.
 
Top Bottom