User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 8:23:49 AM EDT
[#1]
There are no other options.
Belief in either one is by faith in God or faith in science. I think science is just a way or an attempt to explain the mechanics of Gods laws, others will say its how nature made itself work, whatever. Some spend their entire life learning, others read a few periodicals and that made their belief what it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 8:53:00 AM EDT
[#2]
Both Evolution and Creation are theories.
1. They cannot be directly observed. 2. They cannot be duplicated. Leaving out the faith aspect (which both schools depend on heavily), you have two theories about how the Universe began. Neither belongs in the Science class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 8:57:23 AM EDT
[#3]
Evolution cannot be observed?
Hmmmm Very very interesting? So that whole fossil record is just a figment of my imagination?? Creationism on the other hand has only an old book made up of other books to go by written by people who did not know the value of pi. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:03:14 AM EDT
[#4]
Quoted: There are no other options. Belief in either one is by faith in God or faith in science. Nope, wrong. You can have faith in God and still accept that life developed via evolution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:08:37 AM EDT
[#5]
Belief in either one is by faith in God or faith in science This is false, if God created the Universe, and I say he did, then he aslo is responsible for the physics and mathematics that is great at describing and quantifying it. There is no argument there. God created the Universe, God Created man with the ability to "See" and quantify it.. its that simple. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:09:00 AM EDT
[#6]
Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. 1. They cannot be directly observed. Uhm. Wrong. Go to the library and check out "The Voyage of the Beagle". I could also send this book to you per e-mail if you're interested. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:10:08 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Nope, wrong. You can have faith in God and still accept that life developed via evolution. Roger that. -legrue |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:13:10 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Creationism on the other hand has only an old book made up of other books to go by written by people who did not know the value of pi. They may not have known the value of pi, but they did try to determine the value of a human life - something science is incapable of determining to even a single decimal point. Science and religion are attempts to learn very different kinds of truths. Neither is any more superior to the other since they do not compete with each other for understanding the same important aspects of existence. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:15:31 AM EDT
[#9]
The way I read this poll is that 67% (24+6+37) of our respondents beleive Creationism should be taught on some level in the public schools system.
Compared to 33% who say it shoudl never be taught or only be taught in Christian settings. That's 2 to 1. I find that interesting. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:16:09 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: Evolution cannot be observed? Hmmmm Very very interesting? So that whole fossil record is just a figment of my imagination?? Creationism on the other hand has only an old book made up of other books to go by written by people who did not know the value of pi. Nope. You cannot observe the process that Evolutionists say that the earth went through to arrive at it's current state. No more than Creationists can convince God to create another one. I know that the 'fossil record' can show whatever the viewer wants it to show. It is definately not proof. All is shows is that certain species lived at certain times, and many are extinct. Evolutionists have a certain amount of data to support their view, and Creationists have a certain amount of data to support their view, but NEITHER can prove what happened. To think otherwise is ignoring the essence of science. Both theories would be great fodder for Speculations 101 class, but Science? Not quite. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:18:56 AM EDT
[#11]
Quoted: Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. 1. They cannot be directly observed. Uhm. Wrong. Go to the library and check out "The Voyage of the Beagle". I could also send this book to you per e-mail if you're interested. Why? Is that book evolving into somthing else? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:21:17 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted: Quoted: There are no other options. Belief in either one is by faith in God or faith in science. Nope, wrong. You can have faith in God and still accept that life developed via evolution. Yup. Belief in God and speculations about origins are not mutually exclusive. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:24:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Quoted: Belief in either one is by faith in God or faith in science This is false, if God created the Universe, and I say he did, then he aslo is responsible for the physics and mathematics that is great at describing and quantifying it. There is no argument there. God created the Universe, God Created man with the ability to "See" and quantify it.. its that simple. I actually believe that there is room for both but God was the force behind it all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:25:09 AM EDT
[#14]
I see that only 30% here believe that creationism has value as a scientific theory, or less than 1 in 3. Personally, if it is taught in comparative religion, that is fine by me.
-legrue |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:26:30 AM EDT
[#15]
Quoted: They may not have known the value of pi, but they did try to determine the value of a human life - something science is incapable of determining to even a single decimal point. However, rarely do you see scientists torturing other scientists to death for having a slightly different opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:36:27 AM EDT
[#16]
Quoted: You cannot observe the process that Evolutionists say that the earth went through to arrive at it's current state. No more than Creationists can convince God to create another one. I know that the 'fossil record' can show whatever the viewer wants it to show. It is definately not proof. All is shows is that certain species lived at certain times, and many are extinct. Evolutionists have a certain amount of data to support their view, and Creationists have a certain amount of data to support their view, but NEITHER can prove what happened. To think otherwise is ignoring the essence of science. Both theories would be great fodder for Speculations 101 class, but Science? Not quite. Logical conclusion, life evolves from simpler forms to more complex forms. The mechanism behind that evolution is natural selection. This is in conflict with the "six days of creation" Christian dogma, and in conflict with every other religious creation myth. That doesn't mean that natural selection and evolution are [i]right[/i], but all the evidence to date backs it up. Science is based on faith - the fundamental precepts of science cannot be "proven," just observed. As many have said, evolution and religious faith don't have to be mutually exclusive - but you can't be a fundamentalist (in any religion) and accept natural selection and evolution as the explanation for the presence of [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i] on the Earth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 9:55:09 AM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: What the fossil record shows is that, at some point in the past there is no fossil record of life, then there is a very, very old record of simple life, and as the geologic strata gets younger, life becomes more pervasive, more diverse, and more complex. The fossil record also shows periodic massive die-offs and rebounds of new forms of life that didn't exist before. The data does not 'show' massive die-offs, rebounds, or incremental changes. People may perceive this situation from a data set, but like I said before, it cannot be proven. In the earth does contain your data, but geography is rife with examples that shows that this is not a hard and fast rule. Therefore any interpretation must allow for these exceptions. Logical conclusion, life evolves from simpler forms to more complex forms. The mechanism behind that evolution is natural selection. This is in conflict with the "six days of creation" Christian dogma, and in conflict with every other religious creation myth. In that case the record would be rife with examples of different stages of natural selection. In fact the number of so-called 'transitional forms' should far out number the number of traditional ones. It could also be logically argued that an Alien spaceship seeded the earth many times with subsequesntly higher order beings in preperation for their 'ultimate creation'. I am just illustrating that small amounts of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. That doesn't mean that natural selection and evolution are [i]right[/i], but all the evidence to date backs it up. All the evidence does clearly not back up evolution. Some does, but some clearly doesn't. Science is based on faith - the fundamental precepts of science cannot be "proven," just observed. NO! Science is based on observation, testing and repeatability! And YES! Scientific principles can be proven. Scientific theories cannot or haven't yet been proven. As many have said, evolution and religious faith don't have to be mutually exclusive - but you can't be a fundamentalist (in any religion) and accept natural selection and evolution as the explanation for the presence of [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i] on the Earth. What does the Fundamentalist (in any religion) believe? The fundamentalist Christian believes that only faith in Christ can save us from our sins. The fundamentalist Muslim believes that devotion to the 5 pillars of Islam will grant him eternal life. Origins is not part of the equation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:12:26 AM EDT
[#18]
There are two Greek words for creation that are translated into our English Bible. The Creation in Genesis is talking about creating something out of absolutely nothing. When we think about creating something, we have to start with a list of materials.
Where did these materials come from? Something to think about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:14:17 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted: Quoted: What the fossil record shows is that, at some point in the past there is no fossil record of life, then there is a very, very old record of simple life, and as the geologic strata gets younger, life becomes more pervasive, more diverse, and more complex. The fossil record also shows periodic massive die-offs and rebounds of new forms of life that didn't exist before. Therefore any interpretation must allow for these exceptions. Logical conclusion, life evolves from simpler forms to more complex forms. The mechanism behind that evolution is natural selection. This is in conflict with the "six days of creation" Christian dogma, and in conflict with every other religious creation myth. It could also be logically argued that an Alien spaceship seeded the earth many times with subsequesntly higher order beings in preperation for their 'ultimate creation'. I am just illustrating that small amounts of evidence can be interpreted in different ways. That doesn't mean that natural selection and evolution are [i]right[/i], but all the evidence to date backs it up. Science is based on faith - the fundamental precepts of science cannot be "proven," just observed. As many have said, evolution and religious faith don't have to be mutually exclusive - but you can't be a fundamentalist (in any religion) and accept natural selection and evolution as the explanation for the presence of [i]homo sapiens sapiens[/i] on the Earth. What does the Fundamentalist (in any religion) believe? The fundamentalist Christian believes that only faith in Christ can save us from our sins. The fundamentalist Muslim believes that devotion to the 5 pillars of Islam will grant him eternal life. Origins is not part of the equation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:26:20 AM EDT
[#20]
Quoted: However, rarely do you see scientists torturing other scientists to death for having a slightly different opinion. Nah, they just torture the rest of us by looking at the human eye, and crediting a non-descript ethereal "force" called natural selection for its spectacular design, when even they admit there's NO WAY a pile of wires, plastic, and semiconductors would EVER become a circuit board via the same natural selection, no matter HOW much time you allowed for. (And the human eye is FAR more complex than the MOST complex circuit board) Its like we're both looking at a duck (webbed feet, feathers, waddles when it walks, quacks) , and they assure me its a watermelon. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:29:21 AM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: The way I read this poll is that 67% (24+6+37) of our respondents beleive Creationism should be taught on some level in the public schools system. Compared to 33% who say it shoudl never be taught or only be taught in Christian settings. That's 2 to 1. I find that interesting. But in a different way. I found it interesting that almost identical numbers (22 vs. 24%) were adamant that their position and only their position was right, I found it interesting that only 6% felt that creationism belonged alongside evolution in a Biology class. I was disappointed that only 37% felt that teaching creationism in a Comparative Religion course was the best choice, but that's just me. I was pleased that it was the majority choice, though. I'm curious about the 11% that said it should only be taught in Christian schools - does this mean that they believe in creationism and think believers should be isolated? That they [i]don't[/i] believe, but think it's a religious belief that should be restricted only to religious schools? What? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:37:58 AM EDT
[#22]
the episcopal priest who taught evolution in my high school put it this way:
god is a busy guy, watching sparrows fall and all. so he set the universe to take care of itself while he takes manages the deity stuff, and we call the mechanisms physics, chemistry, genetics, evolution, even philosophy and science. i prefer a simpler explanation, but his point was that belief in god(s) need not preclude acceptance of evolution theory. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:43:14 AM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: They may not have known the value of pi, but they did try to determine the value of a human life - something science is incapable of determining to even a single decimal point. However, rarely do you see scientists torturing other scientists to death for having a slightly different opinion. Maybe not. But... They'll just lobby Congress to confiscate your property because a flock of geese stops in your yard during their migration. They'll just shut down production of hydroelectric dam that could serve clean energy to an entire state because of a snail darter. They'll just advocate for unilateral disarmament and acquiesence to the Soviet Union using fear-tactics based on their "scientifically-verified" models of a "nuclear winter". They'll just force you use low-flow toilets, stop smoking, institute a ban on freon and stop the exploration for oil in 0.1% of ANWR all with the blessing of their "scientific findings". No. They won't directly kill you. They'll just advocate the deconstruction of all of Western Civilization because of their "ozone holes" or "Global HotAir" Theories. Yeah, scientists are passive, harmless and altruistic to humanity. [rolleyes] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 10:45:04 AM EDT
[#24]
Quoted: Quoted: The way I read this poll is that 67% (24+6+37) of our respondents beleive Creationism should be taught on some level in the public schools system. Compared to 33% who say it shoudl never be taught or only be taught in Christian settings. That's 2 to 1. I find that interesting. But in a different way. I found it interesting that almost identical numbers (22 vs. 24%) were adamant that their position and only their position was right, I found it interesting that only 6% felt that creationism belonged alongside evolution in a Biology class. I was disappointed that only 37% felt that teaching creationism in a Comparative Religion course was the best choice, but that's just me. I was pleased that it was the majority choice, though. I'm curious about the 11% that said it should only be taught in Christian schools - does this mean that they believe in creationism and think believers should be isolated? That they [i]don't[/i] believe, but think it's a religious belief that should be restricted only to religious schools? What? The idea of "teach" is ambiguous. Teach it as if it were a fable? an option? an equal theory? a fact? part of a great piece of literature? There are too many ways to teach this. Teaching religious ideas, and about religion should be a part of all schools. Teaching "religious belief" SHOULD be restricted to religious schools. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 11:09:19 AM EDT
[#25]
Quoted: Heard of Occam's Razor? Yes. It is a detective theory. Again, Occam's razor. The simplest answer that fits the evidence is considered the most likely. That theory doesn't automatically prove anything. Ever heard a scientist say, "That's crazy, but not crazy enough to be true?" Scientists can create all the theories they want, "but the truth will always be far stranger" -credits to Aurther C. Clarke OK, the overwhelming majority supports evolution, and that which doesn't fit does not overturn evolution. Of course it doesn't overturn evolution. No amount of evidence can ever turn over a fact. On the other hand, no theory is so rock solid that a bit of evidence can't touch it. Um, no. The basic foundations of science are based on observed reality, testing and repeatability, but that does not mean that what we observe is really fact. Granted, but really, What is the Scientific Method? If reality isn't real, then science isn't science, and inventions don't work. Repeatability and predictability is a major part of science. Paper burns when held over a flame. I can percieve the paper burning and disappearing, and therefore theorize that paper enters the twilight zone when touched by a flame. In reality though, science tells me that the flame causes changes to the paper. I don't know what they may be, that is for another experiment. Remember, we used to believe that the world was flat and that there were only 4 elements. Well our perception through science must be improving because our inventions are based on current chemistry and physics, and they work! Our experiments are even predictable! Thus we know that our observation is far closer to reality than it used to be. We now orbit the earth at a constant altitude. Is this possible with a flat earth? No. We can therefore safely say that the Earth is not flat. Then we believed that there were only three fundamental particles. Once we believed Newtonian Physics answered all our cosmology questions, now we think Einstein was "right." But even Einstein didn't accept the reality of black holes - an extension of his own theories. We are not even close to understanding the complete reality of the Universe, but based on what we know about how it works, (repeatability, predictability, observation) we can send men to the moon, wirelessly talk to someone anywhere, and make 2 dimensional pictures look 3D. There are theories about how Einstein was wrong. He knew it, he just wasn't ready to make the leap. Then what the fvck is Genesis? It is the first book of the Bible, but you knew that! [;)] Just because it is there doesn't make it Fundamental to Christian belief. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 1:36:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Nope, wrong. You can have faith in God and still accept that life developed via evolution. Except that would make you a moron. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 2:16:13 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. 1. They cannot be directly observed. 2. They cannot be duplicated. Leaving out the faith aspect (which both schools depend on heavily), you have two theories about how the Universe began. Neither belongs in the Science class. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 2:31:46 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted: I don't understand why biologists are so anal about evolution. Physicists are certainly not as anal about the big bang. If a physics prof is teaching a class about mechanics, electrodynamics, relativity, etc. the big bang hardly ever gets mentioned as it's not pertinent. I have never seen a "big bang" class available. That's prolly cuz physicists know that if you take one big mass of rock, and it goes "BANG!!! ' you don't end up with a million billion ALMOST PERFECTLY ROUND other rocks all moving in perfect orbits with no intergalactic pileups(like we see in our solar system and other galaxies) You get a bunch of jagged shards and shrapnel. So, physicists kinda keep their evolutionary theories under wraps. Infact, this is so well known, that I beleive they've junked the Big bang Hoax, and replaced it with "Well, we're really not sure about how the planets got here." But biology profs teach evolution continually. They look for every opportunity available to talk about it even when completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Like other religious whackos, they shouldn't teach their faith as fact. In my reading of evolutionists, one of the things that hit me right between the eyes is how VERY sexual it all is. ESPECIALLY for biologists who beleive in evolution. The whole theory of evolutyion is based on amassing reproductions. The biological role of the male is to knock up as many feamles as possible. (THis is all true. I've read the theory) Soooo.... I imagine it makes a good pickup line in teh bars - "Hey baby - wanna do some evolution research???" [}:D] Sex sells everything from cars to shampoo. I'm bettin' there a whole lotta "research" goin' on (or at least evolution presents no moral restraints to doing as much "research" as possible) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 2:51:28 PM EDT
[#29]
A teacher comments on Ohio’s proposed science standards...
[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0521ohio_commentary.asp[/url] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 2:57:26 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted: That's prolly cuz physicists know that if you take one big mass of rock, and it goes "BANG!!! ' you don't end up with a million billion ALMOST PERFECTLY ROUND other rocks all moving in perfect orbits with no intergalactic pileups(like we see in our solar system and other galaxies) That's not how it's theorized to have happened. You get a bunch of jagged shards and shrapnel. So, physicists kinda keep their evolutionary theories under wraps. The scale of things is pretty different between a hand grenade and the big bang theory, including the scale between the thing, the materials within, and the energy released by each. But yeah, it's just a theory. Personally I find it just as believable as the idea that an invisible know-everything two-faced deity with a bad attitude created everything and expects me to kiss his ass even though I didn't ask to be created in the first place. Sounds like spiritual slavery to me. An eye might be an extremely complicated thing for the human mind to contemplate, but that doesn't necessarily mean it *is* complicated. How about a toenail? We just don't know very much, really. In fact, we know next to nothing at all about anything in particular. Just observe the antics of people trying to figure out what's wrong with their AR-15! Forget trying to figure out the universe. [:D] |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 3:43:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted: Quoted: Nope, wrong. You can have faith in God and still accept that life developed via evolution. Except that would make you a moron. Nope, it would make you intelligent. Blindly believing in a literal interpretation of a book written not as a science book but as a moral lesson for Bronze-Age nomads is what is moronic. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 3:53:12 PM EDT
[#32]
Quoted: Quoted: I don't understand why biologists are so anal about evolution. Physicists are certainly not as anal about the big bang. If a physics prof is teaching a class about mechanics, electrodynamics, relativity, etc. the big bang hardly ever gets mentioned as it's not pertinent. I have never seen a "big bang" class available. You get a bunch of jagged shards and shrapnel. So, physicists kinda keep their evolutionary theories under wraps. Infact, this is so well known, that I beleive they've junked the Big bang Hoax, and replaced it with "Well, we're really not sure about how the planets got here."[/red] But biology profs teach evolution continually. They look for every opportunity available to talk about it even when completely irrelevant to the topic at hand. Like other religious whackos, they shouldn't teach their faith as fact. The biological role of the male is to knock up as many feamles as possible. (THis is all true. I've read the theory) Soooo.... I imagine it makes a good pickup line in teh bars - "Hey baby - wanna do some evolution research???" [}:D] Sex sells everything from cars to shampoo. I'm bettin' there a whole lotta "research" goin' on (or at least evolution presents no moral restraints to doing as much "research" as possible) Sheesh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 4:27:05 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted: Blindly believing in a literal interpretation of a book written not as a science book but as a moral lesson for Bronze-Age nomads is what is moronic. I agree [b]RikWriter[/b], and add that believing in the ENTIRE literal interpretation of the events of the Bible can just as mistaken as believing that NONE of the events are true. The trouble is being able to distinguish between the actual historical events, moral lessons, parables and prophecies. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 4:42:08 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. Yep. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 5:32:11 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted: Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. Yep. Not by any scientific definition. So-called "scientific creationism" isn't beyond the hypothesis stage, if that. Intelligent Design is also simply a hypothesis as it has no firm supporting evidence as of yet. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 5:33:02 PM EDT
[#36]
Quoted: Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. Yep. Nope. If you gotta use the lingo, then at BEST, creationism is a hypothesis, and a poor one at that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 6:18:14 PM EDT
[#37]
% of times 'fixity of species' has been observed in a laboratory setting: 100%
Not too swift, this evolution thing, eh? Compare that to the creation argument. All that is necessary to understand this is a basic grasp of the science of biological engineering. Unlike it was back in the Beagle years, mankind can now sequence DNA and create new forms of life. Hey, did spider goats evolve or were they created: [URL]http://faramir.sangonet.org.za/misa/articles/1999/jul/other/26207-other.html[/URL] For you logical thinkers out there, it is important to recognize that while natural selection will doubtless occur, this logically leads only to an improvement WITHIN a breed - unless of course you're willing to believe (on faith and against the objective evidence) fixity of species to be a myth. In fact, you can take religion out of the argument entirely - evolution still loses because the principle of fixity of species has never been found to be wrong in all the matings ever recorded. Compare that to evolution, which in the same number of matings has not once produced offspring of a new species. Time for our old theories to evolve. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/18/2002 7:25:00 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted: % of times 'fixity of species' has been observed in a laboratory setting: 100% Not too swift, this evolution thing, eh? Well, someone having to do with that post was not too swift...I will refrain from saying who. The FACT is, if you have enough deviation within a species due to natural selection, you wind up with a new species that can't breed with the original. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:23:38 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Both Evolution and Creation are theories. Yep. Nope. If you gotta use the lingo, then at BEST, creationism is a hypothesis, and a poor one at that. I'm know that you are not correct, but given that you are: Both evolution and creation are hypotheses. A hypothesis is a rule that has been formed about how somthing happens, that has not been proven yet. A hypothesis must be subjected to scientific tests and retests in order for it to be called a fact. What is your hypothesis on why fine grain particulates are volitile? A theory, OTOH, is just a more general word that describes ideas that people have that haven't been proven yet. What's your theory on who killed Prof. Plum? I am not an entemologist (SP? word study guy) but I can see that Hypothesis is based on 'thesis', which is basically a well researched, documented, and reasoned theory. Am I that close to home that you have to pick apart the arguement based on laymans understanding of language? By DEFINITION, a hypothesis cannot be a 'bad' one if known data fits the theory. And yes, it is a fantistic leap to believe that God created everything in 6 days, but I also consider it improbable that random turmoil causes infinitely fine systems to be created. I consider the two things to be equal and opposite. 1. Infinite power, that cannot be proven or disproven, created the world as we see it. 2. Powerless forces of chaos, which can be measured and studied, created the world as we see it. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my opinion about that whole Creation vs. Evolution in Science class thing. Neither is hard science, which unfortunately kids don't learn enough of. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:27:44 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted: Quoted: % of times 'fixity of species' has been observed in a laboratory setting: 100% Not too swift, this evolution thing, eh? Well, someone having to do with that post was not too swift...I will refrain from saying who. The FACT is, if you have enough deviation within a species due to natural selection, you wind up with a new species that can't breed with the original. Can you come up with examples where this has happened and neither of these two following conditions have been present: 1. The offspring was sterile. 2. The reproduction process was closely supervised and selected by scientists. I can't think of any offhand, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:36:41 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: So-called "scientific creationism" isn't beyond the hypothesis stage, if that. Intelligent Design is also simply a hypothesis as it has no firm supporting evidence as of yet. Well, other than the entire known universe exibiting "intelligent design" . And given the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we can hypothesize that we are currently in state of LESS organization than we were 10,000 or even 10,000,000 years ago (if you believe our planet is that old.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:38:10 AM EDT
[#42]
Quoted: I'm know that you are not correct Ever hear the old saying "It ain't what you don't know that hurts ya, it's what you know that just ain't so?" Fits your post. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:50:17 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted: Quoted: I'm know that you are not correct Ever hear the old saying "It ain't what you don't know that hurts ya, it's what you know that just ain't so?" Fits your post. Ok then, please point out why I am wrong in using the word theory in place of hypothesis. BTW - I am not arguing in any way for Creation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:52:24 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted: Quoted: So-called "scientific creationism" isn't beyond the hypothesis stage, if that. Intelligent Design is also simply a hypothesis as it has no firm supporting evidence as of yet. Well, other than the entire known universe exibiting "intelligent design" . And given the Second Law of Thermodynamics, we can hypothesize that we are currently in state of LESS organization than we were 10,000 or even 10,000,000 years ago (if you believe our planet is that old.) No, that would be a common Creationist misstatement of the consequences of the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The 2nd law mentions NOTHING about organization or order, it involves ENERGY STATES. Basically, it says that IN A CLOSED SYSTEM, energy states tend toward equilibrium...high energy states will bleed energy to low energy states, in other words. However, high-energy DOES NOT MEAN ordered and low-energy DOES NOT MEAN "chaotic." The highest energy state for matter is a plasma, which is a very very simple state of matter. As it cools, it becomes solid, a more complex state of matter. Also, the earth is not a closed system, and life tends to reverse entropy. So nothing about evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics, as much as Creationists would wish it so. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 7:53:40 AM EDT
[#45]
Quoted: Ok then, please point out why I am wrong in using the word theory in place of hypothesis. . A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested either by experiment or by prediction, and has received supporting data. Evolutionary biology has made predictions that have been confirmed. Creationism has not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 8:04:30 AM EDT
[#46]
Quoted: A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested either by experiment or by prediction, and has received supporting data. Evolutionary biology has made predictions that have been confirmed. Creationism has not. How has Evolutionary theory been tested by experiment or prediction? It seems that the majority of data supporting both positions is fairly circumstantial or otherwise up to subjective interpretation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 8:13:34 AM EDT
[#47]
Quoted: I'm know that you are not correct, but given that you are: Both evolution and creation are hypotheses. Nit-picking aside, no they are not. Not according to the scientific community at large. A hypothesis is a rule that has been formed about how somthing happens, that has not been proven yet. A hypothesis must be subjected to scientific tests and retests in order for it to be called a fact. What is your hypothesis on why fine grain particulates are volitile? A theory, OTOH, is just a more general word that describes ideas that people have that haven't been proven yet. What's your theory on who killed Prof. Plum? I am not an entemologist (SP? word study guy) but I can see that Hypothesis is based on 'thesis', which is basically a well researched, documented, and reasoned theory. Am I that close to home that you have to pick apart the arguement based on laymans understanding of language? Close. In layman's terms, a hypothesis is a scientific guess as to how something works. Data and experimentation are what changes a hypothesis to a theory. A theory is much more concrete. Scientists create and discard hypotheses all the time. A theory is only discarded when new data disproves the whole thing. By scientific definition, a theory such as Einstein's theory of relativity, will never be "proven" as opposed to who killed Prof. Plum which will be proven when you look at the cards in the case file at the end of the game :). So believe it or not, I am NOT picking on you for your words, rather, it is important to use the correct word because in this debate it is often said that "evolution is just a theory" as if being a theory makes evolution less valid. Now what are you talking about with regards to "fine grain particles" being "volitile"? Are you refering to grain dust/elevator explosions? If so, I do not need to hypothesize, since the causes of grain elevator explosions are well known. I believe the word you are looking for is 'etymologist' (one who studies the origin or words) vs 'entomologist' (one who studies insects) |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 8:14:30 AM EDT
[#48]
cont...
By DEFINITION, a hypothesis cannot be a 'bad' one if known data fits the theory. And yes, it is a fantistic leap to believe that God created everything in 6 days, but I also consider it improbable that random turmoil causes infinitely fine systems to be created. I once had a science teacher who posed a question. Prove the earth moves around the sun and not vice versa. (essentially Ptolomeic vs Copernican models) It was next to impossible for us students to do. After we were done, it was explained that many hypotheses and models could be used to explain the given data, but that most likely, the simplest was true and that other hypostheses and theories tended to confirm which earlier hypothesis was correct (in this case, Newton's laws of gravitation worked in a Copernican system but not a Ptolemeic system). Evidence for Evolution is overwhelmingly supported by genetics and the geological record. To support creationism, the data has to be twisted too much (anyone familiar with the term 'retrograde motion' will understand the analogy). I consider the two things to be equal and opposite. 1. Infinite power, that cannot be proven or disproven, created the world as we see it. 2. Powerless forces of chaos, which can be measured and studied, created the world as we see it. I hope I have sufficiently clarified my opinion about that whole Creation vs. Evolution in Science class thing. Neither is hard science, which unfortunately kids don't learn enough of. If you feel you need to believe in Creationism to believe in God, that is fine. I personally do not. I would agree that Evolution is not "hard" science in the classic meaning of that term, but it is the most reasonable explanation given the facts available. Thanks for the dialogue, -legrue |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 8:21:14 AM EDT
[#49]
Quoted: Can you come up with examples where this has happened and neither of these two following conditions have been present: 1. The offspring was sterile. 2. The reproduction process was closely supervised and selected by scientists. I can't think of any offhand, but that doesn't mean there aren't any. Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late Forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/19/2002 8:22:29 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted: Quoted: Nope, wrong. You can have faith in God and still accept that life developed via evolution. Except that would make you a moron. I did not know if you intended it or not, but you've just called most mainstream Christain denominations (Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Methodists, Lutherans (ELCA), and I'm sure some others), and by extension, the majority of Christians, morons. Just an observation [:D] -legrue |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
