Your believe: Darwin or Creationism?

I take it that by "Darwinism," you mean natural selection? That is a constant force in life's development, and it is absolutely unavoidable. Even foetuses are naturally selected - many don't survive to maturity, abortion or no, for instance.

No one, however - not Charles Darwin and not "liberals" - wishes for human society to operate according to some kind of dog-eat-dog, survival of the fittest-type model. Well, no one except American conservatives & capitalists, anyway.

 

Both.

God can create a working mature universe that looks billions of years old. Nobody could tell one or the other.

 

Hmm’ If God is God can’t he or it create energy from nothing? One could imagine a tremendously advanced race. Lets say they are as far advanced as humans are from virus or even more (about 3 billion years). BTW, I have no qualms seeing God as ET if ET possessed the same attributes as the God of the Bible. On the Kardashev scale which is a “method of measuring a civilization's level of technological advancement, based on the amount of usable energy a civilization has at its disposal. The scale has three designated categories called Type I, II, and III”. These guys are a mythical type five, that is they can create universes. That’s not too far fetched; Google universe created in the lab. Anyway one can see how ET can create a universe why cant God create energy? Lastly we are using the big bang model of origins. it’s the most accepted theory and is the go to theory of scientists*. The big bang states energy was created after the big bang.

Theory that. The debate of mind brain duality tells us thought may not need a brain.

Good point, but not completely true. BTW,infinites are addressed in the KCA. Infinity can either be an actually infinite duration that has no beginning or end, or it can be a duration that has no end to it but had a beginning. Lastly even though I use ‘atemporal‘, ‘infinity‘, and ‘eternal’ kind of interchangeably, all have differences. Here is a source. http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=530821

I do not see the correlation, besides I am claiming God is not a physical entity, and that energy was created after the big bang. I have my doubts if God is truly all powerful in our universe because he created it to run on natural law. His domain is atemporal/eternal.

Maybe if God were a physical enity you may have a point, I would even have issues if God were corporal.

It depends of which version of creation one is critiquing. One agrees with evolution and cosmology almost perfectly. Remember science has been so wrong in the past as to be a system that is only correct for the day and maybe not even that. Not counting fraud. So which to believe? Science theory which must have the option of being false or religion ?

Yes but that is the secular view. There are others.

Again that is a secular blanket statement.

Yes one in particular comes to mind…Piltdown man. It lasted 40 years.

Yes however they are still libel to be false. What is science truth today will be quaint myth a hundred years from now…eh?

I would agree to that only conditionally. The lab sometimes has the conditions too good and no one knows precisely what the early earth was like to a accuracy of 100%.

Again all the above is libel to be false. I don’t have to list the mistakes and frauds of science. In addition I do not think there is enough time for earthly or even in the universe to create the diversity etc that exists.

Yes, I covered the above in an earlier post. Creation has two main standards (google progressive creation vs. YO creation) but no standard theory. I agree that creationism needs a standard theory. Only then should be it taught as such.

reva

 

Yes, they are.

The active role of the demiurge appears to have ceased at the Big Bang.

This is not neccessarily to assert that the dense mass of whatever blew up was not the manifest will of God.

Obviously, if God exists, He is rational, and expects us to behave in a moral way, and that morality must be rational, otherwise, God would be unjust in punishing those who are immoral. Thus, the universe should be arrayed logically, so that we can test morality. Reality must, of course, not be subject to manipulation by magic so that immorality becomes moral and the penalty for crimes may be avoided by magic.

Thus, the Creation must be self-sustaining according to a fixed set of laws.

One thing is clear from the fossil record concerning morality. We exist as humans because we developed some sense of altruism and charity, and, without it, would not have survived, let alone built a rational society.

The diseased and healed bones of the H. habilis found by Donald Johansson at Oldouvai or the broken and healed bones of H. neanderthalensis tell us, unmistakeably, that it is God's intent that we take care of our old and disabled.

Evolution would, then, imply that God is a Communist. The Christian right cannot have any of that.

 

I agree, but Darwin was way closer then Creationism, he got us on the right path

course maybe they believe like Romney, that man evolved into gods and created them


.

 

The problem is that a scientific theory has to be based upon physical and/or emperical evidence and no such evidence exists for creationism. It must also be testable for validation because if it's not then it's an opinion and not a theory. Darwin's theory of natural selection (not evolution which is established by physical evidence) explained the mechanisms that caused evolution, not evolution itself. Very similiar to theories on how gravity works. Gravity exists because we can see it but what causes it to work and how does it work is what the theories relate to.

Creationism has no foundation because there is no evidence of god either physical or emperical. Creationist "theory" could not present the mechanisms of how it occurs. It is a belief based upon the beliefs of those from many thousands of years ago that were fundamentally ignorant of natural processes. They couldn't explain the origin of the universe or life so they created myths and those myths became religious beliefs.

 

Yes sorry for cutting in on unifiers dance... Its an interesting question deeper than a first read might indicate, but goes to the heart of Shivas and a couple of other members rebuttals. Personally I feel God is not omnipotent in this universe. He or it or she ha ha, created this universe and sentient beings for a specific reason. The universe was constructed to run by what we call natural law ie the laws of nature. I feel God could change the physical laws of nature if he had to, and according to scripture did just that once and will do it again just after Armageddon. So God still retains his omnipotence but supernatural intervention is exceedingly rare in the physical universe while it’s the norm in his realm (some call heaven). Why make man suffer through a life time of challenges, pain and suffering etc when God could make 2+2=5? No one knows for sure, my take is that we are part God (we have a soul) and part flesh. Flesh is necessary to take our soul and mind through time. I believe the only way to cleanse our mind/body is to learn through a lifetime of free will choices, then and only then will we be fit to have an eternal awareness and life. Yes its all speculation but life U (University) seems in the range of possibility all things considered. Yes I know Io is pulling his hair our about now.

Excerpt>>>>

I would lay odds that Jesus (and I) would choose communism/socialism as the most fair form of government. However, only Jesus could make c/s work in real life like it does in theory. I better explain my comment before my church peers start gathering firewood to burn me at the stake for saying Jesus was a communist or more accurately might choose communism over capitalism if fairness was the issue. *Cof* If asked in what government already in existence I prefer to live in, it would be here in the representative democratic republic, the USA. However that said I do believe and have to anyone that would listen all governments, yes the USA too, are evil by default. Ultimately they are about controlling people, and are the bane of real freedom.

reva

 

Yes, we've heard that before. God faked the origins of the universe and the fossil record to deceive people into not believing in god. Now that makes a whole lotta sense.... NOT!

 

Only by forced slavery or by having internment camps for those that are lazy and would exploit the system....

 

Those aren't taught in science class because we sort of reserve science class for stuff like, ya know, science. As soon as ID and Creationism conducts some sort of experiments or case studies, and subjects them to peer review then it would make sense to teach those in science class too. I'll be eager waiting for those case studies.

But in the any of the hundreds of thousands of churches in this country, you can teach all the non-science you want, have at it...not banned...at all...even get a tax break for it...enjoy this country's oppressive laws

 

There are millions of people who read the Bible and take different interpretations away with them. Some are righteous and believe that zippers are sinful. Others read holy texts and believe that cheeseburgers are against the will of God. And there are some who read the Genesis myth and hold that as the one and only viable way to explain the origin of life on Earth.

Are we, as a secular society, bound to give up scientific education to a faction of people who believe mankind was created whole and placed on this planet like a potted geranium because the Bible tells them so? If 'their' science is true, let them prove it using the same methodology the theory of evolution has been subjected to. Otherwise, teach Creationism in philosophy class. And evolution in science class.

 

I suppose you could say that if your intentions are to do something evil, but that has less to do with Darwinism and more to do with what your objectives are.

You could apply this principle to anything. For example, I know how to make a bomb out of cleaning chemicals. That doesn't mean I would actually do it, however. Knowledge can be used for good or evil.

By the same token, recognizing that evolution is the most logical explanation for our existence could be used to justify certain racist acts, but then again, so can religion.

Eugenicists used secular logic to do evil things, while the Spanish Inquisition used religion to do them.

Evolution as applied to humanity simply explains the variability in the human genome and how haplotypes spread across the planet. Our DNA itself gives us an insight into how exactly humans migrated and what time frames these migrations occurred.

Darwinism is the recognition that the laws of the wild are brutal. When humans first existed, it really was a short and bloody existence. Civilization itself is a response used to counter pure Darwinism, because we prefer to be nicer to each other than to simply kill anyone or anything that gets in our way.

 

The trouble is in the title of the thread. It asks for evidence, not empirical evidence or theory. I might also say that some forms of creation have nearly as much evidence or more than some 'science theories', evidence that can be falsified etc and meet the requirements scientific method for theory. Why? Because some forms of creation are almost exactly the same as the evo and other positive science theory. The biggest difference is the two theories would have different opinions of origins. I would add that science can not explain with a high degree of accuracy what cause the universe to begin to exist. There are other examples where science can not say definitively or accurately exactly how life began? There are theories of the origins of life, but no proof or really no good empirical evidence, its circumstantial evidence at best. The miller experiments and those that followed up are some evidences science might use, however none precisely show how the first inorganic chemicals come together to form life in the time allowed. Even life or life’s precursors coming from space are used to explain away the time problem as well as other troubling questions concern the origins of life and the evolution of life.

(evolution within the frame work of a species, and I do have issues with the classification process as well )

Now I can agree with at least part of that. I was just thinking about that walking my dog this morning. We have a good theory, i.e. general relativity describes gravity how gravity works but not why it works. Well I should say Newton’s equations first described gravity however they are not accurate compared to Einstein’s version. So there it is, I cant wait until gravity is better known, and we have a theory of quantum gravity. Better yet when a theory is created that combines quantum and classical physics into one theory.

That “creationism has no foundation“…etc is true only for young earth creation if that. Most science too is based on very old concepts like germs coming from bad air etc, and yes science was at one time was beyond ignorant and absolutely wrong about many subjects and theories. So I don’t think any of the above could be used to discredit spirituality or its formal twin brother; metaphysics . What many do not realize the western way of thinking could have chosen a combination of metaphysics and positive science instead of positive science only.

I believe if the early thinkers would not had been so arrogant and chose both metaphysics and positive science we may not be at the impasse we are today. As Hawking said recently ‘before our science can tell us what is going on past the event horizon of a Black Holes singularity we will have to develop a new physics‘ or words to that effect. Metaphysics may had bestowed more scientific tools for investigation if early turn of the century groups like the Vienna circle had not belittled and ostracized the metaphysical genius logistician Kurt Godel.* When the west and most of the first world embraced positive science and rejected metaphysics it threw the baby out with the bath water IMO. How many Godels did demonizing and demeaning metaphysics convince would be Godels to choose another profession? Anyway the current exclusive crusty elite science priest club is a pet peeve of mine. Its their way or the hi-way. the same goes for evidence for the existence of God. There is evidence as I have shown. Science itself has no empirical evidence for some of its dearest theories either, another case of the kettle calling the pot black.

* Amazon.com: A Madman Dreams of Turing Machines ...http://www.politicalforum.com/opinion-polls/www.amazon.com/A-Madman-Dreams-Turing...Kurt Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems sent shivers through Vienna's intellectual circles and directly challenged Ludwig Wittgenstein's dominant philosophy. ...
Reading this book, you can imagine the pain of being socially outcast, …

Or Google Kurt Gödel metaphysics, theist, Vienna Circle, Positivism vs. Metaphysics etc to read more about where science dropped the ball.

reva

 

There are more people who are work minded than not, so there is enough support for the liberty of those who choose not to work in socialism.

 

agreed reverend, we are the evidence to creation, there is no need for the scientific method to prove our theory. Evolutionists just follow up on creationists facts, on how we got here.

when finally dark matter is revealed by scientists and astronomists, everyone will know, that is Jesus, until then the evidence is staring us right in the face everytime we look up in the stars.

 

If we're throwing out empiricism, then how do you know Christianity is correct? I could just as easily say that Islam is the correct interpretation -- or any religion for that matter.

 

Excerpt from River Rats post>>>

Hmm, I feel its the other way round' If anyone teaches or sometimes even mention God in public school they can land in jail. No, we do not want anyone to give up anything, however we do want our children and adults to have a choice. The problem is that the secular authorities want total dominance and exclusive access to our children’s education and minds by eliminating choice. For now they have it at least in the public schools. That is one reason I may not pay all my taxes lol...(but I am legal).

Lastly our government is secular but our population is exceedingly biased towards spirituality, specifically Christianity to the tune of nearly 80%! Our vote is the only thing we have to protect us from the dictatorial totalitarian secularism of a sometimes malicious minority.

reva

 

Creationism is a philosophy, not a science. It doesn't belong in science class.

 

Read my reply to shiva then get back to me lol...ok, I will be nice; In that reply I said until a standard theory of creation can be mustered it should not be taught. There are at least two standard creation hypothesis but they are not full fledged theories. One is almost exactly the same as the science theories for the same subject.

reva

 

I so agree my friend. We, with our three pound 100 watt super-supercomputer** brain that runs on a piece of toast and a sip of water is evidence for a creator. I would add the Universe to the evidence list as well because when it emerged from the BB 'singularity'* it contained all the info needed to unfold into a life giving process. That should be evidence enough for the existence of God to a rational, reasonable and logical mind. More reasons for the universe being evidence of an ID/God, my fav’ being the Universe beat incredible odds to be fit for life as we know it. In fact the odds were over one to the hundred and twenty sixth power to one! **** against the universe being clumpy i.e. having atom based matter instead of being a vast sea of smooth white hot plasma or other form of energy***. (smooth = no stars planets or humans lol)

You mention Jesus in the dark matter, who knows? I often suggested God was in the quantum because some Q processes seem to indicate spooky action at a distance (owed to Albert), by that I mean faster than light transfer of information. In any case a Christian claims Jesus/God is everywhere and is evident in everything, dark matter is no exception! God bless you and yours LM as well as everyone that will accept a heart felt sacrosanct donation.

Foot notes and extra quantifying information;

* I and most science authors of popular articles including even some physicists take artistic licenses suggesting the big bang singularity is the same as the BB singularity. Its not the same for several reasons. The two primary reasons; 1..the amount of mass in each, 2.. space and time were created from the Big Bang singularity. However, black holes 'warp' space to the point where most theories say it forms a hole in the fabric of space-time, thus ending time.

** Our three pound brain when total processing power etc is considered is exponentially smarter than a ten ton air conditioned digital computer that takes a zillion amp dedicated power source , is evidence of a designer. See excerpt at bottom of this page for a web site source detailing where a feeble IBM super computer has managed to equal 4.5% of our brains processing power, with conditions.

***Emperor's New Mind Penrose- Book http://www.politicalforum.com/opini...nai.com/.../penrose/The Emperors New Mind.pdf www.reasonablefaith.org/multiverse-and-the-design-argument

www.creationofuniverse.com/html/equilibrium03.html

Ha! Evolutionists reject out of hand any claim of creationists in the same manner that some members use in this thread. Worse is that the rejecters' (my word) rarely even know that there are more than one form of Creation, in fact most are ignorant of 99% of what creation entails, yet they arbitrarily reject most if not all ideas arguments and even musings of those that subscribe to ID or creation, themselves not the same animal.

IBM is trying to simulate (4.5% of reva) the human brain with its own cutting-edge supercomputer, called Blue Gene>>>>snip<<<<So configured, Blue Gene simulated 4.5 percent of the brain's neurons and the connections among them called synapses&#8212;that's about one billion neurons and 10 trillion synapses. In total, the brain has roughly 20 billion neurons and 200 trillion synapses.

Read more;
http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ulates-4-percent-human-brain-all-of-cat-brain

reva

 

Science is only as good as it's tools. The process is sound, it's actors are not.

 

Short answer. No.

Long answer. Lol no.

 

Again creationist and ID&#8217;ers for the most part are ethical and reasonable. As I have pointed out the &#8216;SECULARS&#8217; not the I/Cers are who demand their version of reality* be taught in public schools and be accepted by the population at large** at the exclusion of all else. (I get tired of typing out creationist and ID&#8217;ers etc so from now on I plan on using I/C (ers) for short).

Lastly different religions have different evidences and different quality of evidences to support their credibility. Some have scientific evidence to support their 'manuals' (holy text books oral tradition etc) claims some not so much. Still its absolutely wrong to compare European witchcraft (which I have practiced) to open Christian theism for example.

While I am ranting I am requesting anyone who critiques etc spirituality including all metaphysics (from Gödel to fringe beliefs) to have a good working knowledge of the subject. It&#8217;s difficult and makes my posts even longer to explain every common nuance of a particular subject. That is not too much to ask is it? I do, and will continue to do the same when I am skeptical/critical of other disciplines etc.

reva

 

Cool beans...do you have any tips for me for turning Smurfs into gold?

 

We want science taught in science classrooms? How horrible!