The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: CactusCarlos on August 27, 2012, 04:20:27 PM
-
http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/technology/2012/08/bill-nye-the-science-guy-hits-evolution-deniers/
In a clip posted to online knowledge forum Big Think via YouTube, former children’s show host Bill Nye spoke out against the denial of evolution, saying such views harm young people especially and hamper scientific progress.
Nye, who hosted the educational show “Bill Nye the Science Guy,†which aired on PBS Kids from 1993 through 1998, made the statements in a clip posted online on Thursday, and has since been viewed over one million times. In the clip, Nye praises the United States for its contribution to technological innovation, but says that the denial of evolution is unique to the country.
“People still move to the United States. And that’s largely because of the intellectual capital we have, the general understanding of science,†Nye said in the clip. “When you have a portion of the population that doesn’t believe in that, it holds everybody back, really.
“Evolution is the fundamental idea in all of life science, in all of biology. It’s like, it’s very much analogous to trying to do geology without believing in tectonic plates. You’re just not going to get the right answer. Your whole world is just going to be a mystery instead of an exciting place,†he added.
Nye made a three-stop tour through New Hampshire earlier this summer to tout President Obama’s education policies while making a push for science and engineering programs. He has endorsed Obama’s reelection bid.
In the clip, Nye said that one’s “world just becomes fantastically complicated when you don’t believe in evolution.â€
“Here are these ancient dinosaur bones or fossils, here is radioactivity, here are distant stars that are just like our star but they’re at a different point in their lifecycle. The idea of deep time, of this billions of years, explains so much of the world around us. If you try to ignore that, your world view just becomes crazy, just untenable, itself inconsistent,†he said.
Nye then goes on to urge adults not to deny the teaching of evolution to young people.
“And I say to the grownups, if you want to deny evolution and live in your world, in your world that’s completely inconsistent with everything we observe in the universe, that’s fine, but don’t make your kids do it because we need them. We need scientifically literate voters and taxpayers for the future. We need people that can — we need engineers that can build stuff, solve problems.
“It’s just really a hard thing, it’s really a hard thing. You know, in another couple of centuries that world view, I’m sure, will be, it just won’t exist. There’s no evidence for it.â€
-
Evolution is nothing but a theory. Just like any other science, there is no facts that support it... I have a hard time believing that the earth started from a big bang, and we all evolved from fish over a span of millions of years.
-
Evolution is nothing but a theory. Just like any other science, there is no facts that support it... I have a hard time believing that he earth started from a big bang, and we all evolved from fish over a span of millions of years.
Please, feel free to believe which ever it is you choose too. Just remember that there's a number of distinctly different forms of scientific evolution, some with overwhelming "facts". It's an injustice that many of the ardent anti-evolution proponents intentionally mischaracterize that to not be the case. While not to support ad hominem attacks, remember that of the two biggest opponents of evolution in the United States at this time; one is in jail for felony fraud (?) and the other I believe was banished from his own congregation for intentionally being deceitful to win people to the anti-evolution side. Because, as you know, God needs people to lie to defend him :whatever: It's a disgrace... :thatsright: Beyond that, it really doesn't matter what you believe, feel free to believe as you wish.
-
Evolution is nothing but a theory. Just like any other science, there is no facts that support it... I have a hard time believing that the earth started from a big bang, and we all evolved from fish over a span of millions of years.
Problem with evolution theory is that physics says matter, without intelligent intervention, will only go from a higher state of order to a more disorganized state. Ergo, in this universe at least, it is impossible for a swirling puddle of amino acids to form DNA chains, or for those DNA chains to organize into more complex cells or life forms without external direction.
(It is entirely possible, though, that the average Dhimmi'Rat is an evolved critter, as most of them aren't as organized or intelligent as your average puddle of goo.) :-)
-
Please, feel free to believe which ever it is you choose too. Just remember that there's a number of distinctly different forms of scientific evolution, some with overwhelming "facts". It's an injustice that many of the ardent anti-evolution proponents intentionally mischaracterize that to not be the case. While not to support ad hominem attacks, remember that of the two biggest opponents of evolution in the United States at this time; one is in jail for felony fraud (?) and the other I believe was banished from his own congregation for intentionally being deceitful to win people to the anti-evolution side. Because, as you know, God needs people to lie to defend him :whatever: It's a disgrace... :thatsright: Beyond that, it really doesn't matter what you believe, feel free to believe as you wish.
Excuse me?
Problem with evolution theory is that physics says matter, without intelligent intervention, will only go from a higher state of order to a more disorganized state. Ergo, in this universe at least, it is impossible for a swirling puddle of amino acids to form DNA chains, or for those DNA chains to organize into more complex cells or life forms without external direction.
(It is entirely possible, though, that the average Dhimmi'Rat is an evolved critter, as most of them aren't as organized or intelligent as your average puddle of goo.) :-)
I believe DUmmies evolved from a rock. As that is about how dumb they are.
-
Because, as you know, God needs people to lie to defend him :whatever: It's a disgrace... :thatsright:
Excuse me?
Sarcasm.
-
Sarcasm.
Sorry, but I don't consider that to be sarcasm.
-
Problem with evolution theory is that physics says matter, without intelligent intervention, will only go from a higher state of order to a more disorganized state. Ergo, in this universe at least, it is impossible for a swirling puddle of amino acids to form DNA chains, or for those DNA chains to organize into more complex cells or life forms without external direction.
(It is entirely possible, though, that the average Dhimmi'Rat is an evolved critter, as most of them aren't as organized or intelligent as your average puddle of goo.) :-)
Entropy and enthalpy should eventually lead to stability.
-
Excuse me?
What you bolded was in reference to the absurd, despicable, and vile notion that some prominent anti-evolutionist hold. That they can be incredibly unchristian in their deceit and attack on evolution, because they believe they're defending God. Personally I prefer Ravenhill's view that God doesn't need our defense as the Word of God is a spiritual Lion.
-
Sorry, but I don't consider that to be sarcasm.
He probably doesn't need people on the internet sniffing disapprovingly for Him, either.
-
What you bolded was in reference to the absurd, despicable, and vile notion that some prominent anti-evolutionist hold. That they can be incredibly unchristian in their deceit and attack on evolution, because they believe they're defending God. Personally I prefer Ravenhill's view that God doesn't need our defense as the Word of God is a spiritual Lion.
You said people have to lie to defend God. That caught me off guard. So are you saying you believe in evolution?
He probably doesn't need people on the internet sniffing disapprovingly for Him, either.
I don't care, quite frankly, he said that people have to lie to defend God. What makes one think that people don't lie to defend evolution? Show me facts the earth is millions of years old. Carbon dating? The half life is only 5,000 years. Anything past that is a guess. It has been proven that people are lying to defend Global Warming. What makes you think the same thing isn't happening with evolution?
-
You said people have to lie to defend God. That caught me off guard. So are you saying you believe in evolution?
You're really not grasping context.
-
You're really not grasping context.
No, I grasp that you said that people don't have to lie to defend God (after you said that people do).
-
No, I grasp that you said that people don't have to lie to defend God (after you said that people do).
Not wanting to reiterate something as simple as my previous statement, I'll simplify things by reducing them down to two personal belief statements. One being that God does not need our defense. While the other being that intentional deceit and lies towards fellow Christians, doesn't defend or serve God.
-
Not wanting to reiterate something as simple as my previous statement, I'll simplify things by reducing them down to two personal belief statements. One being that God does not need our defense. While the other being that intentional deceit and lies towards fellow Christians, doesn't defend or serve God.
Both right statements. So if someone says that evolution isn't real, are they being deceitful towards God?
-
I don't care, quite frankly, he said that people have to lie to defend God. What makes one think that people don't lie to defend evolution? Show me facts the earth is millions of years old. Carbon dating? The half life is only 5,000 years. Anything past that is a guess. It has been proven that people are lying to defend Global Warming. What makes you think the same thing isn't happening with evolution?
Suit yourself, but that isn't particularly close to what he said at all, really the converse of his meaning. You're shadow-boxing with an affront to your belief that you yourself invented and want to get spun up about, and nobody else does.
On the science part, I'm not sure you understand what 'Halflife' really means for radioisotopes, because the inverse exponential relationship to measure something that decreased by half every 5,000 years should actually be an excellent method for measuring surviving organic material out to several tens of thousands of years for remains containing mainly carbon. For instance, if the tested item had 1/16 the proportion of C14 in it that living matter would have, that would peg it right at about 20,000 since it stopped adding new environmental carbon to its structure. The limit for the method is about 60,000 years, but there are similar techniques for other longer-lived radioisotopes beyond that. It does require extreme precision instrumentation to do it at all.
Now the last part of that I suppose depends on what you mean by 'Facts.' If the only thing that makes something a 'Fact' is that it's written in the Bible, it's an argument that can't be beat even if it does eventually lead to the conclusion that nobody really knows why airplanes fly, they just do. If you dismiss fossils and geology as 'Facts' on the basis that either 'That all happened in forty days' despite the differences in rock layers and development for totally unexamined reasons, or 'God made it that way to fool the Faithless,' there's certainly no beating that one either, since nothing that conflicts with it is going to make it over the hurdle of becoming a 'Fact,' so nothing productive could be gained by going any further down that road.
-
Suit yourself, but that isn't particularly close to what he said at all, really the converse of his meaning. You're shadow-boxing with an affront to your belief that you yourself invented and want to get spun up about, and nobody else does.
On the science part, I'm not sure you understand what 'Halflife' really means for radioisotopes, because the inverse exponential relationship to measure something that decreased by half every 5,000 years should actually be an excellent method for measuring surviving organic material out to several tens of thousands of years for remains containing mainly carbon. For instance, if the tested item had 1/16 the proportion of C14 in it that living matter would have, that would peg it right at about 20,000 since it stopped adding new environmental carbon to its structure. The limit for the method is about 60,000 years, but there are similar techniques for other longer-lived radioisotopes beyond that. It does require extreme precision instrumentation to do it at all.
Now the last part of that I suppose depends on what you mean by 'Facts.' If the only thing that makes something a 'Fact' is that it's written in the Bible, it's an argument that can't be beat even if it does eventually lead to the conclusion that nobody really knows why airplanes fly, they just do. If you dismiss fossils and geology as 'Facts' on the basis that either 'That all happened in forty days' despite the differences in rock layers and development for totally unexamined reasons, or 'God made it that way to fool the Faithless,' there's certainly no beating that one either, since nothing that conflicts with it is going to make it over the hurdle of becoming a 'Fact,' so nothing productive could be gained by going any further down that road.
I know what he said. I know he was being sarcastic. Sometimes it is hard to to see the emotions on the web. Yes, I am a creationist. But the bible does mention some things of science, like the Dinosaurs for example; they are called Great Beasts or Leviathans. And if you look at recent archeological findings, science is proving the bible right. Whether someone believes it or not.
-
:thatsright: :banghead:
-
:thatsright: :banghead:
The bible is wrong? And Darwin was right?
-
The bible is wrong? And Darwin was right?
I'm sorry but you're a ****ing retard with your logic and conclusions. I hope that wasn't too difficult to grasp, I'm going to put you on ignore now so I don't see any more of this drivel. I now understand why science is so difficult for you.
-
I'm sorry but you're a ****ing retard with your logic and conclusions. I hope that wasn't too difficult to grasp, I'm going to put you on ignore now so I don't see any more of this drivel. I now understand why science is so difficult for you.
Thank you for proving my thought....
-
That thread blew up quickly, and undeservedly, in my opinion. I see no reason that evolution and creation leaning Christians can't have honest debates without umbrage for one another. Each view has it's merits, and it's shortcomings.
-
Harvard University's 'Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative' is an interdisciplinary effort consisting of leading physics, chemistry, and biology evolutionary scientist to prove that life, “could have taken place with no divine intervention.â€
This ongoing project started about 2005.
So far, no cigar.
‘The Science Guy’ demands that children be taught to accept, without question, what the real evolutionary scientist are desperately trying to prove.
Correction; they’re only looking for “could have.â€
David P. Barash evolutionary biologist and professor of psychology at the University of Washington: "When scientists speak to the public or to students, we talk about what we know, what science has discovered. ... But it gives the false impression that we know pretty much everything, whereas the reality is that there's a whole lot more that we don't know."
Mr. ‘The Science Guy’, real science doesn’t demand that you accept a theory; it challenges you to prove or disprove the theory.
-
If you dismiss fossils and geology as 'Facts'...
"Why then is not every geological formation and every strata full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against my theory." Charles Darwin
-
Gratiot: Just remember that there's a number of distinctly different forms of scientific evolution, some with overwhelming "facts".
If you think you’ve got “factsâ€, then please get hold of David R. Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard; ‘Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative’.
They desperately need your help!!!
They’re looking for some “factsâ€; not really “factsâ€, but “could have.â€
Read every theory supporting evolution; it’s always “could have.â€
Once you have a “could have†then the evolution cult members demand that it be accepted as a “fact.â€
Most of the “factsâ€, that is “could havesâ€, have been proven impossible!
Ever wonder why evolutionary scientists are so desperate to search planets for the origin of life when there’s such a massive presence of life on every square inch of Earth?
You have 100 trillion critters living in, and on, your body.
A real scientific fact is that there’s currently no workable theory of how life could have started on Earth!
Prebiotic Evolution; "Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based." Dr. Michael A. Meyer, Discipline Scientist for the Exobiology Program, NASA Headquarters.
-
That thread blew up quickly, and undeservedly, in my opinion. I see no reason that evolution and creation leaning Christians can't have honest debates without umbrage for one another. Each view has it's merits, and it's shortcomings.
Yep, just like liberals, you can't have a civil discussion with some evolutionists. They think they have all the 'FACTS' and know all the science. But when you ask them to show said 'FACTS', they buckle and spit in your face.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: There are no 'FACTS' to support 'ANY' science. It is all based on theories. Any 'REAL' scientist will tell you that.
Edited for my stupid spelling.
-
If you think you’ve got “factsâ€, then please get hold of David R. Liu, professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Harvard; ‘Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative’.
They desperately need your help!!!
They’re looking for some “factsâ€; not really “factsâ€, but “could have.â€
Read every theory supporting evolution; it’s always “could have.â€
Once you have a “could have†then the evolution cult members demand that it be accepted as a “fact.â€
Most of the “factsâ€, that is “could havesâ€, have been proven impossible!
Ever wonder why evolutionary scientists are so desperate to search planets for the origin of life when there’s such a massive presence of life on every square inch of Earth?
You have 100 trillion critters living in, and on, your body.
A real scientific fact is that there’s currently no workable theory of how life could have started on Earth!
Prebiotic Evolution; "Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based." Dr. Michael A. Meyer, Discipline Scientist for the Exobiology Program, NASA Headquarters.
Evolution, we see it every day, science shows us how diseases can evolve from on thing to another and adapt to our medication so the drugs are no longer usefull to combat that disease.. New unknown strains of the Flu virus that evolves, mutates into another strain.
If an unseen organism can mutate, why not higher forms of life.??
Pig farmers know that a pregnant sow that escapes and goes wild will in in short time have a litter of baby's that are much different from the mother herself. Far as I know the pig is the only Anamal that changes from domestic to wild in this way.
The Neanderthal Man, darn I have known people with the features , the large head and big brow bone that resemble the recreations in museums. Where the heck did their DNA come from ??
Go to the zoo and check out the giraffes, did God have a sense of humor and create these poor animals that in order to drink water have to splay their legs out to counter balance their body ????
Then we have our cousin the Gorilla that has been filmed in the wild mimicking human behavior they see. One film really got to me, a big brute watching the scientists that were watching him, A large stream dull of slippery rocks separated the two watchers.
Occasionally the scientists would cross the stream using a walking stick for balance. Then out of no where the Gorilla went searching and found a good size stick, played with it for awhile and then on two legs using the stick mimicked the humans and crossed safely.
Evolution of mind and body, our plants and animals, all is part of the Master Plan for our Planet.
Humans live quite well without some lost in the past need for a Gall Bladder or Appendix. ---Can you roll your tongue, usefull if drinking out of streams, but what about some of us that cannot do that, have we evolved beyond the need to do so ???
-
On the science part, I'm not sure you understand what 'Halflife' really means for radioisotopes…
Current theories estimate about 5 billion for Universe; 4 or 4.5 for Earth; and life started about 3.5 billion years ago.
Not saying I believe this, and I don’t, because it’s all based on assumptions, but I’ll give it to you.
So you’ve got about 3.5 billion years to get this whole “Life†thing done.
Looks like you’ve got a lot of time, until you start considering the Math.
You’ve got 10 trillion cells in your body.
You’ve got 100 trillion little living entities living on and in your body, one million on your face.
You have about 100 billion neurons and 100 trillion synapses in your brain.
DNA is so complex that, "A device the size of your thumb could store as much information as the whole Internet," Harvard University molecular geneticist George Church.
You can’t just add these numbers up!
You have to multiply the possibility of it all coming together as a functioning entity in 3.5 billion years.
Oh, and some single cells have a motor capable of doing 6,000 to 17,000 rpm unloaded; sperm cell. (Flagellum)
3.5 billion years; I’ll give you 350 billion years, make that 100 trillion years.
The math won’t work.
-
The bible is wrong? And Darwin was right?
What if you're reading it wrong?
If you discount that possibility then you've never read the Bible right.
-
Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin? This is a false dichotomy, I think.
IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.
-
Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin? This is a false dichotomy, I think.
IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.
Copernicus said that the Holy Spirit teaches men how to go to Heaven, not how the heavens go.
-
Yep, just like liberals, you can't have a civil discussion with some evolutionists. They think they have all the 'FACTS' and no all the science. But when you ask them to show said 'FACTS', they buckle and spit in your face.
I have said it before, and I will say it again: There are no 'FACTS' to support 'ANY' science. It is all based on theories. Any 'REAL' scientist will tell you that.
Theories, despite your derisive tone, are derived from empirically observed facts. Gravity is a theory based upon the empirically observed fact that small things are attracted to bigger things, inversely proportional to the distance between them. Are you denying that gravity exists because it is a theory? A theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been disproven by any documented observation.
-
vesta111: Evolution, we see it every day, science shows us how diseases can evolve from on thing to another and adapt to our medication so the drugs are no longer usefull to combat that disease..
Adapt, yes; which falls within the definition of “evolutionâ€.
Adaptation is essential; no adaptation, everything dies.
If an unseen organism can mutate, why not higher forms of life.??
Good question, same question Darwin asked.
Mutations have to be related to bring about any significant change.
(toe gets longer and finger gets shorter; not related)
4 related mutations: 10^28 (bacteria)
World = 510,072,000 sq/km (CIA Fact Book)
Google "510072000 square km to square inches ="
World = 7.90613181 × 10^17 square inches
bacteria per square inch = sample/earth's square inches
bacteria per square inch = (10^28)/(7.90613181 X (10^17))
Google "(10^28)/(7.90613181 X (10^17))="
(10^28)/(7.90613181 X (10^17)) = 1.26484104 x 10^10 bacteria per square inch
Google "1.26484104 x (10^10)="
12,648,410,400 bacteria per square inch of the Earth's surface
Just for one form of bacteria to make 4 related changes; the Earth isn't big enough.
That's only one small step in the path the Theory of Evolution wants to take us down (neo-Darwinian).
-
docstew: A theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been disproven by any documented observation.
There is no working theory of how life could have started without God!
Prebiotic Evolution; "the processes that led to the first living cells"
"Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based."
Dr. Michael A. Meyer, Discipline Scientist for the Exobiology Program, NASA Headquarters.
The writing group consisted of:
Dr. Michael H. Carr, USGS
Dr. Benton Clark, Martin-Marietta Aerospace
Dr. David J. DesMarais, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Donald L. DeVincenzi, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Jack D. Farmer, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. John M. Hayes, Indiana University
Dr. Heinrich Holland, Harvard University
Dr. Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado
Dr. Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute
Dr. John F. Kerridge, University of California, San Diego & NASA HQ (chair)
Dr. Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University
Dr. Andrew H. Knoll, Harvard University
Dr. Gene D. McDonald, Cornell University
Dr. Christopher P. McKay, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Michael A. Meyer, NASA HQ
Dr. Kenneth H. Nealson, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Everett L. Shock, Washington University
Dr. David M. Ward, Montana State University
-
Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin? This is a false dichotomy, I think.
IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.
DS if you're saying what I think here then I'm with you. I'm a Christian and believe in creation as a whole. I ALSO believe living things have evolved to suit their environment. The cut off here is I don't believe a lizard laid an egg and a chicken hatched out.
Can living breathing organisms evolve? Sure, why not? God made them and now they are adapting to the environment. How cool is that?!
KC
-
There is no working theory of how life could have started without God!
I wasn't saying that there was. I was responding to KR's derisive comments about theories.
I believe that God created life in the beginning and then let it run to see where it would go.
-
I wasn't saying that there was. I was responding to KR's derisive comments about theories.
I believe that God created life in the beginning and then let it run to see where it would go.
I'm fine with that myself.
-
“In a human, there are more than 125 trillion synapses just in the cerebral cortex alone,†said Smith. That’s roughly equal to the number of stars in 1,500 Milky Way galaxies, he noted.
http://med.stanford.edu/ism/2010/november/neuron-imaging.html
You've got 1,500 Milky Way galaxies of synapses in your head.
Theses are just a few of the living parts of a whole living entity.
Use a few of them.
This degree of complexity is going evolve from rocks in a puny few billion years?
-
What if you're reading it wrong?
If you discount that possibility then you've never read the Bible right.
Based on what the bible says in Genesis 1. How could you read it wrong?
Genesis 1
New International Version (NIV)
The Beginning
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the first day.
6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning —the second day.
9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds. ” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning —the third day.
14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fourth day.
20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning —the fifth day.
24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”
27 So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground. ”
29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food. ” And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning —the sixth day.
Theories, despite your derisive tone, are derived from empirically observed facts. Gravity is a theory based upon the empirically observed fact that small things are attracted to bigger things, inversely proportional to the distance between them. Are you denying that gravity exists because it is a theory? A theory is a hypothesis that has not yet been disproven by any documented observation.
Sorry if my tone seems to be contemptible. I am not trying to be like that at all. I just got a little upset because of the individual who blocked me calling me an 'F'n RETARD!' (because I wouldn't bow to his atheistic evolutionary beliefs).. But for your question, yes, science is all based on theories. I am not trying to discredit science. It does have some feasible explanations of things. My main point was that I don't believe we evolved from fish who came out of the ocean, that eventually turned to apes, then became humans.
Sure people could say that we evolved from Ape's for example; they claim the reason is because 98% of our DNA matches theirs. Well, 98% of our DNA also matches that of a dragon fly, House Fly, a fish, and your firs cousin. So saying the statement that we evolved from Apes is not plausible.
I, too, do not believe that a crocodile laid an egg that hatched a chicken.
I wasn't saying that there was. I was responding to KR's derisive comments about theories.
I believe that God created life in the beginning and then let it run to see where it would go.
This I would except.
Why does it have to be bible vs. Darwin? This is a false dichotomy, I think.
IMNSHO, Darwin's theories would be a discussion of the MECHANISM; the Bible is the User Guide from the MECHANIC.
The bible vs. darwin is the main issue. Darwin completely discredits the bible, and God, by claiming that the universe started from an explosion in space. And eventually caused the earth to form and humans coming from fish who came out of the ocean. If that is the case, why are the other planets not the same as earth?
-
Some theories have the advantage of being well documented, well experimented, well researched, and having no evidence disproving them. Gravity is such a theory, yet not everything is known about gravity, like the attractive force. But all in all, the theory of gravity is about as close to fact as one can get. Other theories have not matured to anywhere near the extent that the theory of gravity. To compare mature theories, and immature, incomplete theories isn't useful, in fact it can be quite misleading. Evolution is a theory that is not fully mature, not even half by my estimate. Evolution may one day be as mature a theory as gravity, but not today.
-
The bible vs. darwin is the main issue. Darwin completely discredits the bible, and God, by claiming that the universe started from an explosion in space. And eventually caused the earth to form and humans coming from fish who came out of the ocean. If that is the case, why are the other planets not the same as earth?
Darwin himself never believed his body of work discredited the Bible. It has always been rabid, activist atheists (as opposed to your average "I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, and we'll both live life as happily as we can" atheist and progressives/Socialists/ Marxists/etc. with a political need to exclude God from their quest for power who have misused his theories and research.
Again, I think it's a matter of the mechanism vs. the designer. Darwin can be completely correct in his assertions, and the fact will not do a single thing to discredit the reality of God's creation of the universe. If God chooses to use "evolution" as the tool for forming all of creation from the proverbial dust of the earth, does that make him any less God? Any less the Creator? Or, ultimately, any less the intelligence which circumvents entropy and causes complex creations to spring forth from the elements?
-
Darwin himself never believed his body of work discredited the Bible. It has always been rabid, activist atheists (as opposed to your average "I'll believe what I believe and you believe what you believe, and we'll both live life as happily as we can" atheist and progressives/Socialists/ Marxists/etc. with a political need to exclude God from their quest for power who have misused his theories and research.
Again, I think it's a matter of the mechanism vs. the designer. Darwin can be completely correct in his assertions, and the fact will not do a single thing to discredit the reality of God's creation of the universe. If God chooses to use "evolution" as the tool for forming all of creation from the proverbial dust of the earth, does that make him any less God? Any less the Creator? Or, ultimately, any less the intelligence which circumvents entropy and causes complex creations to spring forth from the elements?
Just the belief of evolution discredits God. Most scientist who believe in evolution do not believe in God, and use it to discredit God.
I have often thought myself that there could be a double way of thinking here. One) God did create the universe, earth and all things on it. 2) There was a big bang that was caused by God. And this is what Darwin was talking about. The difference is that it wasn't millions of years ago. It was sooner. Ie; if you go by what the bible says and look at the age of the earth, it is less than 10,000 years old. So if there was a big bang, that was caused by God, it was about that time period. Of, course this is just an assumption on my part....And in this assumption both Darwin (Except for the time frame) and the bible would be right.
-
Darwin didn't say anything about the creation of the universe, yet you keep attributing the Big Bang Theory to him. All Darwin said was that living creatures, over time, adapt to better fit into their environment.
-
Just the belief of evolution discredits God. Most scientist who believe in evolution do not believe in God, and use it to discredit God.
If this is truly the case, then your God is a whole lot more fragile and less omnipotent than the one who hears my prayers each night.
Look at it this way, KR: when God decides that some evil dudes need an ass-kicking, does he warm up the ol' smiting button and start hurling lightning bolts at the offenders in question, or does he put the bug in the ear of the right person - good or evil - down here on Earth (the rival drug dealer, the "respectable" crook in the cell block, or the US Armed Forces) and point them in the right direction?
-
Darwin didn't say anything about the creation of the universe, yet you keep attributing the Big Bang Theory to him. All Darwin said was that living creatures, over time, adapt to better fit into their environment.
I know, I say that because the Big Bang Theory always comes up as a complement to Darwin's Theory. Even though the Big Bang Theory was thought up after him.
If this is truly the case, then your God is a whole lot more fragile and less omnipotent than the one who hears my prayers each night.
Look at it this way, KR: when God decides that some evil dudes need an ass-kicking, does he warm up the ol' smiting button and start hurling lightning bolts at the offenders in question, or does he put the bug in the ear of the right person - good or evil - down here on Earth (the rival drug dealer, the "respectable" crook in the cell block, or the US Armed Forces) and point them in the right direction?
I like your point. God would put a bug in the ear of the right person and point him/her in the right direction.
-
Just the belief of evolution discredits God...
Switch "discredit" for "at odds with."
BTW -- if you're going to cite Genesis as to why the Bible is at odds with something you might want to insure the translation you use does not employ the word "serpent" as accuracy is central to the point of your argument.
-
I am going to quite citing things. People will find something wrong with everything you use.
-
I am going to quite citing things. People will find something wrong with everything you use.
"Wrong" only applies if you CANNOT defend your argument.
If you WILL NOT defend your argument its called "conceding."
You could try vigorously defending your argument but that requires fewer appeals to emotion to be effective.
Of course, bringing one's argument in line with observed phenomenon is always an option as well.
-
"Wrong" only applies if you CANNOT defend your argument.
If you WILL NOT defend your argument its called "conceding."
You could try vigorously defending your argument but that requires fewer appeals to emotion to be effective.
Of course, bringing one's argument in line with observed phenomenon is always an option as well.
Telling someone to make sure they use the right version of the bible is kinda stretching it. It doesn't matter what version of the bible you use, people will find an issue with. I think what we should do is ask what version of the bible people read before citing it. :thatsright:
-
Telling someone to make sure they use the right version of the bible is kinda stretching it. It doesn't matter what version of the bible you use, people will find an issue with. I think what we should do is ask what version of the bible people read before citing it. :thatsright:
My point is: You claim your reading of Genesis renders you impervious suggestions that the world exists by any other understanding.
Yet, what you read and how you understand it (potentially) is not the the intent of the Creator. That isn't to question scripture, that's to question you. That sounds harsh, I know; but if you had your choice of errors would you choose you being wrong or the Bible being wrong?
I'm confident of your answer and that's what makes you a good Christian in the sincerest meaning of the term.
Don't get butt-hurt because "nachash" has been translated as "serpent" lo these many centuries. Archbishop Ussher gave us the whole 6,000 year old erf debacle based on his very human reading of Chronicles. It's not a problem with revelation or even translation; it's a problem with Archbishop Ussher. The problem is people injecting themselves into a thing meant to move them away from themselves.
But then that's what The Book is really about anyway: People are messed-up, here's why and here's how the Divine seeks to fix them.
At least that much was properly translated so there's still hope.
-
My point is: You claim your reading of Genesis renders you impervious suggestions that the world exists by any other understanding.
Yet, what you read and how you understand it (potentially) is not the the intent of the Creator. That isn't to question scripture, that's to question you. That sounds harsh, I know; but if you had your choice of errors would you choose you being wrong or the Bible being wrong?
I'm confident of your answer and that's what makes you a good Christian in the sincerest meaning of the term.
Don't get butt-hurt because "nachash" has been translated as "serpent" lo these many centuries. Archbishop Ussher gave us the whole 6,000 year old erf debacle based on his very human reading of Chronicles. It's not a problem with revelation or even translation; it's a problem with Archbishop Ussher. The problem is people injecting themselves into a thing meant to move them away from themselves.
But then that's what The Book is really about anyway: People are messed-up, here's why and here's how the Divine seeks to fix them.
At least that much was properly translated so there's still hope.
Nachash means 'Shiny One'.. But I get your point. Thanks, Sgt. :cheersmate:
-
Kyle Ricky: Just the belief of evolution discredits God...
SGT Snuggle Bunny : Switch "discredit" for "at odds with."
I'd have to agree with "discredit".
Each of us is a conglomeration 10 trillion individual living cells that are totally dependent on the whole.
Each of the 10 trillion cells is an extremely complex machine and chemical factory engineered at the molecule and atom level; using atoms and molecules, via ion pumps and ion channels, to transmit energy and information. The archetypal channel pore is just one or two atoms wide.
Nothing works for free. Each of the 10 trillion cells need a constant source of energy and information and regulation. The diversity of the 10 trillion cells requires totally different machinery and different kinds of ion pumps and ion gates. Some ion gates permit passage based on the electoral charge, some pass atoms and some gates may be controlled by chemical or electrical signals, temperature, or mechanical force. On top of that, all the ion pumps have to be supplied with energy and some support timing regulation.
This 10 trillion cell entity starts out as just one cell.
The one cell knows how to build an entity consisting of 10 trillion pieces of living, complex and diverse machines engineered at the molecular level and able to work with atoms and molecules.
Not only; each stage, from one cell to 10 trillion cells, has to know how to build the next stage!
Theory of Evolution = dead theory walking.
-
I stopped after it said Bill endorsed Teh Won's re-election bid.
I never did care for his show growing up.
-
Theory of Evolution = dead theory walking.
Fine. All you have to do is document empirical evidence of a single case that contradicts it. Voila, theory destroyed.
-
I stopped after it said Bill endorsed Teh Won's re-election bid.
I never did care for his show growing up.
He was better as a sketch comic on the Seattle show Almost Live. Once he became nationally known, he became his inner leftist asshole came permanently to the fore.
-
docstew: Fine. All you have to do is document empirical evidence of a single case that contradicts it. Voila, theory destroyed.
It doesn’t work that with the Theory of Evolution; which is a theory and also a religion.
“single case that contradicts itâ€; it’s already a given that there is no working theory of how life could exist without God.
Harvard’s “'Origins of Life in the Universe Initiative†started with the goal; “my expectation is that we will be able to reduce this to a very simple series of logical events that could have taken place with no divine intervention.â€
This massive project started in 2005; still looking for “could haveâ€.
NASA; Prebiotic Evolution; “Research in recent years has challenged all aspects of this paradigm as well as the assumptions on which it is based.†Dr. Michael A. Meyer, Discipline Scientist for the Exobiology Program, NASA Headquarters. “New theories are emerging, diverse viewpoints are finding encouragement, and there are several competing hypotheses regarding prebiotic chemical systems. New data, new observations, and new techniques are required.â€
Currently, there is no working theory of how life could exist without God!!!
What do you think they’re looking for on Mars? … “could haveâ€
-
All this time I've been told the Air Force has their pick of the best and brightest candidates, only to be proven wrong now.
The theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with how life originated. The theory of evolution, like any other theory, is a hypothesis that has not yet been proven wrong by empirical data.
All the theory of evolution states is that living creatures will either adapt over time to best fit in their environmental situation, or they will die.
Humans evolve. Want proof? Take two humans, one Masai tribesman from Kenya, the other an Inuit tribesman from Alaska. They're both human, have the same genetic makeup, but couldn't look more different if they tried. The Masai is tall, muscular, and developed the ability to run long distances and survive in high heat because that gave them an advantage in escaping predation and hunting. The Inuit is usually squat, carries a subcutaneous layer of fat, and developed the ability to withstand freezing temperatures with little effect on them. Have them switch environments and both will likely die.
-
Humans evolve. Want proof? Take two humans, one Masai tribesman from Kenya, the other an Inuit tribesman from Alaska. They're both human, have the same genetic makeup, but couldn't look more different if they tried. The Masai is tall, muscular, and developed the ability to run long distances and survive in high heat because that gave them an advantage in escaping predation and hunting. The Inuit is usually squat, carries a subcutaneous layer of fat, and developed the ability to withstand freezing temperatures with little effect on them. Have them switch environments and both will likely die.
Would that be more along the lines of Natural Selection (NS)?
Not to pick a fight but usually when strict naturalistic-materialists (atheists) talk about evolution they tend to make claims of trans-speciation, i.e. birds evolving from dinosaurs.
It's been my experience that fewer Christians get upset at the idea of Natural Selection when it is presented as such but its evolution implying trans-speciation that drives them up a tree. I can see the former as being theologically permissable to them; trans-speciation, not so much. You can have NS without evolution.
-
theory of evolution has NOTHING to do with how life originated
"On the Origin of Species" has NOTHING to do with how life originated???
Better tell NASA.
Written by NASA Exobiology Program Manager: Michael A. Meyer
"Research is focused on tracing the pathways taken by the biogenic elements, leading from the origin of the universe through the major epochs in the evolution of living systems and their precursors. These epochs are 1) The cosmic evolution of the biogenic compounds, 2) prebiotic evolution, 3) the early evolution of life, and 4) the evolution of advanced life."
signed by;
Dr. Michael H. Carr, USGS
Dr. Benton Clark, Martin-Marietta Aerospace
Dr. David J. DesMarais, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Donald L. DeVincenzi, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Jack D. Farmer, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. John M. Hayes, Indiana University
Dr. Heinrich Holland, Harvard University
Dr. Bruce Jakosky, University of Colorado
Dr. Gerald F. Joyce, Scripps Research Institute
Dr. John F. Kerridge, University of California, San Diego & NASA HQ (chair)
Dr. Harold P. Klein, Santa Clara University
Dr. Andrew H. Knoll, Harvard University
Dr. Gene D. McDonald, Cornell University
Dr. Christopher P. McKay, NASA Ames Research Center
Dr. Michael A. Meyer, NASA HQ
Dr. Kenneth H. Nealson, University of Wisconsin
Dr. Everett L. Shock, Washington University
Dr. David M. Ward, Montana State University
-
Would that be more along the lines of Natural Selection (NS)?
Not to pick a fight but usually when strict naturalistic-materialists (atheists) talk about evolution they tend to make claims of trans-speciation, i.e. birds evolving from dinosaurs.
It's been my experience that fewer Christians get upset at the idea of Natural Selection when it is presented as such but its evolution implying trans-speciation that drives them up a tree. I can see the former as being theologically permissable to them; trans-speciation, not so much. You can have NS without evolution.
NS is the meat of the ToE. It supposes that one or more traits are more suitable to a specific environment than another, giving the organism carrying that trait a reproductive advantage. Just like the first bacteria to gain resistance to antibiotics, the new form soon overwhelms the old form, and that species then carries only the new trait. The ToE also supposes that there are many environments suitable for life, just in different ways, such as fresh water/salt water for fish, so no one species of life completely dominates another as long as they don't directly compete.
The ToE assumes that something must be alive, therefore it must consume, excrete and reproduce, in order to be able to utilize these advantageous traits. It never states that a rock gains an advantage over other rocks by coming to life and moving to a different location.
-
NS is the meat of the ToE...
I understand that and don't argue against your description.
However, I am suggesting that while the ToE relies on NS you can have NS without accepting the ToE.
-
I understand that and don't argue against your description.
However, I am suggesting that while the ToE relies on NS you can have NS without accepting the ToE.
I shall concede that point.
-
The law of inheritance of acquired characteristics was disproven. It once was considered a law of science.
-
The law of inheritance of acquired characteristics was disproven. It once was considered a law of science.
It was also stupid.
The point I've been trying to make, apparently not very well, is that in science, words mean things. People say Law when they mean theory, etc. Laws are those scientific observations that are ALWAYS TRUE. Action ALWAYS EQUALS Reaction (Third Law of Motion). Order always leads to chaos in a closed system (Second Law of Thermodynamics). Theories have been developed after experimentation and observation to fit an observed set of data. There is a Doppler shift of galaxies moving away from us, therefore there must have been a massive motive force, like a big explosion, to propel that much matter to that distance (The Big Bang Theory). Elements are made up of individual pieces, called atoms, that cannot be further divided without losing their properties (Atomic Theory).
These are not interchangeable terms.
-
BOSTON (CBS Connecticut) — The National Atheist Party is canceling its secular convention due to a lack of funding
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/08/30/national-atheist-party-cancels-convention-due-to-lack-of-funding/
Unfit to survive?
-
http://connecticut.cbslocal.com/2012/08/30/national-atheist-party-cancels-convention-due-to-lack-of-funding/
Unfit to survive?
Imagine that. Maybe they should believe in money.
-
Imagine that. Maybe they should believe in money.
Money has that whole "In GOD We Trust" thingie. Can't be seen associated with that, now can they... :lmao:
-
Money has that whole "In GOD We Trust" thingie. Can't be seen associated with that, now can they... :lmao:
Correctomundo. Maybe their quest to find nothing to believe in will fail ?
-
That thread blew up quickly, and undeservedly, in my opinion. I see no reason that evolution and creation leaning Christians can't have honest debates without umbrage for one another. Each view has it's merits, and it's shortcomings.
That's true. I was taught both, concurrently, in Catholic Grade School. The two are not, necessarily, mutually exclusive.