Quote:I think we can all agree that there are many mysteries that lie beyond our ability to comprehend at this point in time.

Agree, I can't comprehend how you could vote for Kerry. :D

Quote:But with things like; pangea,

Creationists have solid explainations for pangea, specifically dealing with plate techtonic shifts and the biblical reference to the flood.

Quote:that law of uniformitarism

This one I have a problem with you using as compelling evidence. This "law" states that things just continue on in a natural process, there is no supernatural intervention. However given the amount of things that are unexplained and just happen my view is it's premature to call this a "law."

Quote:and carbon dating

Carbon dating is highly suspect and really only reliable up to a few thousand years. Any dating that goes into the millions or billions is based on unproved assumptions based in evolutionary theory (ie what radioactive elements were in the rock when it formed).

Quote:I can't comprehend how an educated individual could argue that the earth is 6,000 years old.

Quite easily.

Please niner. Are you trying to tell me that what you've posted is purely your own orignal thoughts? Give me a break. I did not copy and paste anything but I did refer to a few differing sources. As for the universe out of nothing, I refer you back to Alan Guth's comment and the fact that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero.

And Torch, I didn't set up a straw man argument with the 6,000 year thing. Go to the bible. In it, you'll find an alleged geneology from Adam to Jesus. Within that geneology, you can find the ages of many of those alleged ancestors. Then, it ain't nothing more than simple addition.

Moreover, I will be the first to admit that scientists can't explain everything. Indeed, I have argued that the purpose of science is not to provide answers but to find new questions. Furthermore, no scientific theory is every complete. General Relativity explains phenomena of the very large (stars, galaxies and the universe) but it breaks down at the atomic scale. Quantum physics explains atomic phenomena but it has absolutely no explanation for gravity. Even something as simple as arithmetic theory is incomplete as it has been mathematically demonstrated that you can't prove every axiom in arithmetic. Descent with modification combined with natural selection (in other words, evolution) provides a theoretical framework that explains the diversity of species. Is the theory complete? Of course not. Are there problems with evolutionary theory? Of course there are.

Compare that with creationist theory that says the entire universe was poofed into existence only 6,000 years ago and that is the absolute, 100% correct theory with no flaws and no new questions to be asked.

Gee MAKO it must be tough to be caught when your words are still on the screen.

Quote:I do know what they teach. They teach that the entire universe is just over 6,000 years old.

But then you tell me

Quote:And Torch, I didn't set up a straw man argument with the 6,000 year thing.  Go to the bible.  In it, you'll find an alleged geneology from Adam to Jesus.  Within that geneology, you can find the ages of many of those alleged ancestors.  Then, it ain't nothing more than simple addition.

that I must follow a certain interpretation of the Bible for this, one that you prescribe. Not one that follows necessarily, even if one believes the Bible is w/o fallacy in its original writing.

If you'd try scholarship instead of conflict you might learn something or at least make a valid point occasionally.

Pangea,

The sea floor spreads at something like 2.4 cms a year. Using this as a basis for your calculations you can put Africa and S. America together something like 75 million yrs. ago. This just happns to be the same time these species of dinosaurs happened to roam S. America and Africa. Two seperate events that put the pieces of the puzzle together.

Now

As for classes in paleontolgy you look at fossils and how they branch off and create new branches. I am aware that some fossils are missing but I have never heard that an "index" fosssil has ever been found that wouldn't fit in our current understanding of evolution. If there is one I would certainly be interested. Our blood has the exact same salt content of ocean water. In the womb we have gills that evolve into lungs. Mammalian embryonic development is strikingly similiar. DNA, cytochrome C, amino acids... there are sooo many things that fall hand in hand with evolution. Homologous and Analogous structures. I could truly go on for days. There are many labs you can do in palentolgy that fall along the lines listed above. I never realized people thought different. We need to do a better job in schools in teaching science.

Quote:Please niner.  Are you trying to tell me that what you've posted is purely your own orignal thoughts?  Give me a break.

Um, no, I actually stated the exact opposite.

Quote:We can continue this pissing contest if you'd like, you know, simply cutting and pasting counter arguments from web sites (but unlike you I don't pass them off as my own thoughts) or you could just post the link to the web sites you're using and let others paruse them at their leisure.

Quote:I did not copy and paste anything but I did refer to a few differing sources.

Can you site the sources? I'd just be interested to see which "references" you posted were verbatim from said sources. I'd be willing to be quite a few.

Quote:As for the universe out of nothing, I refer you back to Alan Guth's comment and the fact that the total amount of energy in the universe is zero.

Oh, you mean the "All matter plus all gravity in the observable universe equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing."

Why MAKO I'm shocked, a profoundly educated man such as yourself relying on something so scientifically absurd. Guth's "theory" is a case of the logical fallacy of equivocation. If we define the universe as nothing, then it's completely consistent to say that its origin is from nothing. Using this logic, I can prove that black is white, and that night is day. But what is avoided is Causality.

Of course Guth as also suggested that advanced aliens could have harnessed the physics of inflation, so our universe could be their creation. You subscribe to that one as well or do you just pick and chose which flavor of the month you'll go with?

The problem with you and those like you is that you want effect without cause so you come up with these absurd "theories" and call them science yet you're relying on nothing more than faith in your views. The same thing you bash creationists for doing.

Dogger Wrote:Pangea,

The sea floor spreads at something like 2.4 cms a year. Using this as a basis for your calculations you can put Africa and S. America together something like 75 million yrs. ago. This just happns to be the same time these species of dinosaurs happened to roam S. America and Africa. Two seperate events that put the pieces of the puzzle together.

That makes the assumption of a constant rate, and doesn't account for a dramatic event. That could be true. Or not. It's probably not the best choice.

Quote:Now

    As for classes in paleontolgy you look at fossils and how they branch off and create new branches.  I am aware that some fossils are missing but I have never heard that an "index" fosssil has ever been found that wouldn't fit in our current understanding of evolution.  If there is one I would certainly be interested.

Exactly. Read the book, Johnson goes to UChicago and other places and cites several. He's got plenty of references, so you can check him out further. Once again, who is an expert in this field? I won't submit a circular argument or a conspiracy theory, but just the fact that paleontology doesn't get the peer review as the hard sciences do leaves it open for error propogation.

Quote:In the womb we have gills that evolve into lungs. 

You think so? Do a google search on "embryonic recapitulation".

<a href='http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec02.htm' target='_blank'>http://pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/17rec02.htm</a>

This "fact" was disproved decades ago, but still shows up in HS biology texts. (Mine included). Evidently yours too.

Quote: We need to do a better job in schools in teaching science.

Indeed we do.

Here's another one for you. Why are deep-sea fish blind? I know what my HS biology class taught: "Use it or lose it" (Lamarkian theory)

However, what do experiments say?

Quote:August Weismann (1834-1914) conceived that the body is divided in germ cells (which can transmit hereditary information) and somatic cells (which cannot). To prove the lack of any influence of the body's acquired characteristics on the germ cells (now referred to as the Weismannian barrier) he experiment to demonstrate that the disuse of an organ led to no diminution in succeeding generations (so refuting neo-Lamarckism). In the "Weimer experiment," for more than 200 generations, white mice had their tails removed at birth. No trend for shortening of the tails was found in the generational issue of mutilated mice. Nor has the rite of circumcision of Jewish boys, faithfully performed for thousands of years, ceased for lack of anything to practice upon.

So how does evolutionary theory explain blind fish? or the human appendix?

Quote:The sea floor spreads at something like 2.4 cms a year.&nbsp; Using this as a basis for your calculations you can put Africa and S. America together something like 75 million yrs. ago.&nbsp; This just happns to be the same time these species of dinosaurs happened to roam S. America and Africa.&nbsp; Two seperate events that put the pieces of the puzzle together.

You're neglecting one variable, the Flood.

Quote:In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, on the seventeenth day of the second month-on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.

Quote:I am aware that some fossils are missing but I have never heard that an "index" fosssil has ever been found that wouldn't fit in our current understanding of evolution.

It would be more accurate to say that no fossil has ever been found that can substantiate the holes in evolutionary theory. Evolutionary theory presupposes the existence of such fossils and then molds the facts to fit within that frame work.

Quote:Our blood has the exact same salt content of ocean water.

Actually, that's not true. The mineral concentrations in human blood plasma and/or serum and seawater are quite different. They are not at all similar. The chlorine and sodium contents of blood are only about 20% to 30% of seawater whereas the iron content is 250 times greater. Compared to seawater, blood has little magnesium but 9,000 times as much selenium. Even within an evolutionary framework of thinking the claim does not make sense. According to evolutionary beliefs, amphibians came out of the sea more than 350 million years ago. Salt is being added to the sea all the time, by rivers carrying dissolved salts from the land to the sea, for example. It would have taken a maximum of 62 million years to accumulate all the sodium we now have in the oceans. In other words, 350 million evolutionary years ago, when amphibians are supposed to have evolved, there should have been no salt in the oceans at all! So, if the salt in the blood of amphibians was similar to that in seawater now, which it is not, it cannot be due to the salt content of the sea when they supposedly evolved. Of course the oceans are not all those millions of years old, as the evidence from the lack of sufficient mineral accumulation indicates.

Quote:In the womb we have gills that evolve into lungs.

Actually that's not true and most of the scientific community rejected that years ago. The fact is a human embryo never looks reptilian or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo, from the moment of conception; it is never anything else. It does not evolve into a human. There's an excellent paper on it you can read <a href='http://trueorigin.org/unseatng.asp' target='_blank'>here.</a>

Quote:Mammalian embryonic development is strikingly similiar.

Some trucks are strikingly similar to cars, that doesn't make them cars.

Blind fish would be explained by their sight is not necessary for their survival. Anything that could give any fish and it's offspring an advantage. Evolution is mostly tied to a food source. Any adaptation that allows for a certain trait in a certain population to gain an advantage over others in a population has the greater chance at survival. I can tell by your other posts you don't need a lecture in evolution, but the key to it is survival and what causes that species to gain an advantage. I wear glasses 20,000 years ago I could not have been a hunter gatherer. I wouldn't have survived to produce offspring. Today our species is no longer dependent upon keen eye sight therefore we have people in our populations with bad eye sight. A blind fish no longer needs sight to feed.

Dogger Wrote:Blind fish would be explained by their sight is not necessary for their survival. Anything that could give any fish and it's offspring an advantage.

EXACTLY!

So what mechanism explains the loss of a trait? For evolution to hold, they must gain an advantage by being blind. It is not sufficient (nor in accord w/ the theory) simply no longer to need that trait. These fish have no advantage by being blind.

I suppose one could argue that the blind fish headed deeper where they no longer were at a disadvantage to the other fish. Thus all the blind fish including those who were blind from a genetic cause, ended up down there and ulitmately produced offspring.

That may be fine, but it's no longer evolution, rather it is population distribution.

Anyway, I'm off topic here, so I'll stop.

The same mechanism that explains the acquiring of a trait explains the loss of it - random mutations funnelled by natural selection. Moreover, there is actual experimental evidence of this.

In the natural environment, any organism must do three things - consume energy, reproduce, and defend itself. Now, let's assume you remove entirely the necessity of defending yourself. Bear in mind that the last one takes an enormous amount of energy that can be used for eating and reproducing. In laboratory experiments, bacteria have been placed in cultures at the perfect temperature and given all the food they could consume. They were isolated from any possible toxins or predators. It's kind of obvious that the bacteria that will be the most successful in this environment are the ones who can process food and reproduce quickly. What scientists find is that snippets of their DNA start disappearing and they end up becoming bags of reproducing energy consumers with no defenses to anything.

The same thing happens in nature. Go to any island that has been free of any land predators for a few hundred thousand years or a few million years. What you will find is that non-sea birds have lost their ability to fly. The mechanism is, again, random mutation funnelled by natural selection.

Let's then look at blind cave fish. (BTW, deep-sea fish aren't normally blind. Indeed, the deep ocean teems with bioluminescence - something that is rather meaningless if there's nothing there to see it). Sight takes both energy and brain processing power and it's completely useless in a totally dark environment. Senses of smell, taste and feel are much better for water creatures. Thus, a survival advantage is conferred on those who use less brain power and energy to see and more to smell, taste, or feel. Over thousands of generations, this survival advantage statistically adds up and the fish lose their ability to see in its entirety.

You will note however, that most things don't disappear completely. Whales still have vestigal leg bones. So do snakes. People have a tail bone whose sole purpose, at least according to my doctor brother, is to put the kids of orthopedic surgeons through college. Now, why would an intelligent designer put vestigal leg bones in whales or snakes. Why would he/she put a tail bone in people when we don't have a tail? That makes no sense at all.

Let's look at one more thing demonstrating random mutation funnelled by natural selection.

Blacks have a very high rate of sickle cell anemia compared to other races. Also, they don't process salt very well so, in the modern world, suffer from high blood pressure at rates far exceeding those of other races. Why would this be?

As it turns out, the malarial parasite can't infect sickle celled blood. Also, it has a very difficult time in salty blood. Natural selection doesn't care about you living to a ripe old age. It cares only about you living long enough to reproduce and raise your young to the age of independence. That's it. Untreated, malaria kills a lot of white people but many blacks have those natural defenses. Admittedly, those natural defenses will kill them earlier than a hypothetically uninfected white or asian (assuming the absence of other diseases) but they will allow the person to live long enough to reproduce and raise independent offspring.

You get one guess as to the continent on which malaria originated.

Now, does sickle cell anemia or the inability to effectively process salt make sense from an "intelligent design" perspective? Why would a creator create the malaria parasite in the first place and then give defenses to it that guarantee early deaths? More importantly, why would he only give the disease and the defenses to one category of human beings? I thought he loved everybody equally. Or maybe those white supremacist web sites are correct and this is more evidence that blacks are inferior to whites and this proves that God doesn't like them.

So, there are your two choices and there are no other.

Choice one - Natural defenses to the malarial parasite evolved through random mutation funnelled via random selection on the contintent where the parasite originated.

Choice two - God created the malarial parasite and gave black sickle cell anemia and salty blood to fight it even though those conditions would tend to kill blacks at an earlier age than whites.

MAKO Wrote:The same mechanism that explains the acquiring of a trait explains the loss of it - random mutations funnelled by natural selection.&nbsp; Moreover, there is actual experimental evidence of this.

In the natural environment, any organism must do three things - consume energy, reproduce, and defend itself.&nbsp; Now, let's assume you remove entirely the necessity of defending yourself.&nbsp; Bear in mind that the last one takes an enormous amount of energy that can be used for eating and reproducing.&nbsp; In laboratory experiments, bacteria have been placed in cultures at the perfect temperature and given all the food they could consume.&nbsp; They were isolated from any possible toxins or predators.&nbsp; It's kind of obvious that the bacteria that will be the most successful in this environment are the ones who can process food and reproduce quickly.&nbsp; What scientists find is that snippets of their DNA start disappearing and they end up becoming bags of reproducing energy consumers with no defenses to anything.

That's a fine example, but it still doesn't explain the human appendix.

You make a case for the blind fish deal, but there is one problem. Losing the sense of sight doesn't necessarily demonstrate more energy going to the other senses. You still have the organs in place and most or all of the mechanics.

Dedicating a small amount of additional brain energy (if that can be shown in fact to happen) does not justify losing the capabilities of an organ that is mostly there.

Secondly, the bacteria analogy is interesting but insufficient. Bactieria are far less genetically complex than multi-cellular animals. A simple defense mechanism such as producing a toxin (basically a protein synthesis) is far less involved, and easier to change, than the complex working of an optical network.

You like to cite the differences between the atomic/quantum scale and the macroscopic...well a similar gulf exists between one-celled organisms and complex animals. Reasoning by analogy from the one-celled creatures to animals is fallacious.

Quote:So, there are your two choices and there are no other.

Choice one - Natural defenses to the malarial parasite evolved through random mutation funnelled via random selection on the contintent where the parasite originated.

Choice two - God created the malarial parasite and gave black sickle cell anemia and salty blood to fight it even though those conditions would tend to kill blacks at an earlier age than whites.

Once again, you choose to set up a straw man argument. You have not adequately described intelligent design, but we are supposed to accept your definition. You know what you can do w/ your Panda's Thumb argument.

But wait, your evolution argument fails too, because as you said, evolution doesn't care about the long life of a creature, just getting it to reproduction age. So HOW or WHY did non-blacks lose that sickle cell trait? After all, there must be some _advantage_ to losing it. And old-age doesn't cut it, by your own admission.

Torch,

The blind fish goes deeper to find a niche. It now has an advantage over fish that do not go into the deep. Less competition better chance at survival. Eyesight is no longer needed. The same can be said for snakes. They have leg bones but they no longer need them. Think of evolution as a tinkerer. Evolution finds genes that are useful and sometimes these genes are turned on or off depending upon what triggers them. What turns genes on and off is a four hr. graduate course but I know it deals with unzipping DNA or unwinding it in the area of DNA you want coded, methanogens, certain groth factors or chemicals. Controlling gene expression is truly a scientific frontier not even scratched. Wel we all have certain genes that could increase our chances of survival in a changing environment, but the original purpose of that gene could now have profound effects for a totally different reason. I am reminded of nontransgressors in AIDS patients. 13% of the people who acquired the AIDS virus in the 80's never had their immune systems attacked. Scientists studied this group and found they their T-4 helper cell lacked a protein binding site that wouldn't allow the AIDS virus to inject it's RNA and go into the lytic cycle. Now the genetic mutation in these people made them suspect to other diseases but left them pretty much immune to AIDS. It is these manipulations of genes and the strength of sexually reproducing species being able to birth a variant through the genetic dice of meiosis and crossing over of chromosomes that leads to evolution.

But wait, your evolution argument fails too, because as you said, evolution doesn't care about the long life of a creature, just getting it to reproduction age. So HOW or WHY did non-blacks lose that sickle cell trait? After all, there must be some _advantage_ to losing it. And old-age doesn't cut it, by your own admission.


The sickle cell gene is a codominant gene. In a hybrid this person carries a gene for sickle cell and for normal hemoglobin. Being a hybrid let's them survive a form of malaria called African Sleeping Sickness. It is carried by the Tse-Tse fly found in Central African nations. (pronounced seet seet fly)

When the cell sickles it lose potassium ions which the Plasmdium that causes the malaria needs to survive. People who do not carry the sickle gene can not fight the malaria this way and they die. The problem is when people carry both genes that sickle the person suffers from sickle cell anemia. For when the cell sickles it can not carry oxygen. Bowling Green had a walkon football die from this this year. They begin to cramp up and their bodies eventually suffocate.

So most Central- African Americans are hybrid for this trait. A'A x A'A The A' is the sickle gene. So if two hybrids mated and had four children you would expect to have one child that is AA. 2 children that are hybrid A'A and one child who would have sickle cell anemia A'A'.

AA kids die from malaria

A'A' die from sickle cell anemia

non blacks never evolved the trait because it wasn't necessary for their survival. The mutation is a point mutation where just one nucleotide was changed which caused just one amino acid to change. Pretty fascinating stuff really.

Dogger Wrote:Torch,

The blind fish goes deeper to find a niche. It now has an advantage over fish that do not go into the deep. Less competition better chance at survival. Eyesight is no longer needed. The same can be said for snakes. They have leg bones but they no longer need them. Think of evolution as a tinkerer. I know it deals with unzipping DNA or unwinding it in the area of DNA you want coded, methanogens, certain groth factors or chemicals. Controlling gene expression is truly a scientific frontier not even scratched. Wel we all have certain genes that could increase our chances of survival in a changing environment, but the original purpose of that gene could now have profound effects for a totally different reason. I am reminded of nontransgressors in AIDS patients. 13% of the people who acquired the AIDS virus in the 80's never had their immune systems attacked. Scientists studied this group and found they their T-4 helper cell lacked a protein binding site that wouldn't allow the AIDS virus to inject it's RNA and go into the lytic cycle. Now the genetic mutation in these people made them suspect to other diseases but left them pretty much immune to AIDS. It is these manipulations of genes and the strength of sexually reproducing species being able to birth a variant through the genetic dice of meiosis and crossing over of chromosomes that leads to evolution.

That's a quaint way of thinking about it...but it doesn't hold up scienfitically. (That's why Dawkins and Gould didn't get along) You get more to the point here...

Quote:Evolution finds genes that are useful and sometimes these genes are turned on or off depending upon what triggers them.&nbsp; What turns genes on and off is a four hr. graduate course but

Because we need a mechanism. And that mechanism is the gene. Genes don't just get turned on and off by some tinkerer. (BTW, note the anthropromorphism used. One can't get away from it, because the design is obvious. So the secularist starts using capital "E" Evolution and gives it a personality. Why? Because it's obvious someone is doing something.)

And for a gene change to stick there has to be an _advantage_. Not just an interesting variation, but an advantage. That's what natural selection is all about. And that's why your examples go against evolution, even at a macroscopic level.

But, let's go back to the microscopic level. What happens when you tinker w/ a gene? Do you just get one expression to change? HS students think so, but the reality is very different. Change one gene, and several traits often change. The genetic code is so deep that genes often overlap in the DNA.

Mako, you are not interested in a serious discussion on this topic. You are offensively dismissive of "Creationists".

Evidence:

On July 30, you wrote:

QUOTE (MAKO @ Jul 30 2004, 02:31 PM)
"Creationism is the theory that an omnipotent being created the entire universe in six 24 hour periods a little over 6,000 years ago. Unfortunately for creationists, there is one big, huge, enormous problem. If the universe does happen to be billions of years old rather than just over 6,000 years old, all of the tenets of creationism fall apart.

Indeed, if that theory was correct, we could not see beyond 6,000 or so light years. The fact that our telescopes can see for billions of light years means that the universe must be at least that old. (If you really want a detailed explanation of how astronomical distances are estimated, I'll give it to you in another post). But, we don't even have to look up to find evidence of the universe being more than 6,000 years old. We know that certain minerals are produced in pure form in volcanic activity. Then, they start to decay at a certain specific rate. We can then measure the ratio of compounds in those minerals and come up with a date.

Creationism also has, as one of its basic tenets, the inundation of the entire world by rainfall sufficient to cover all land. OK. Let's see what evidence would be required to fit that theory.

Well, first off, we're not certain what would happen to the fish when you mixed all that fresh water with all that salt water. While a few fish can tolerate both, most can only tolerate one or the other and some have extremely limited tolerances. The ark was less than 1/3 of the size of a modern aircraft carrier. How did Noah fit two of every single species of animal in a space that small when they certainly would not fit on an aircraft carrier. Remember, scientists estimate that there are something like 10 million species in existence. And since all animals are the same today as they were then according to creationist theory, don't forget to include two of every species of dinosaur. Oh yeah. Almost forgot. Wouldn't you need food for those animals as well? For that matter, how did plants survive since Noah didn't take any plants other than crops onto the ark? Last but most importantly, ALL fossils should be randomly distributed throughout ALL strata if a flood indeed killed every single living animal on the earth. While the occasional out of place fossil is indeed found on occasion, finding a 1 in a million example does not support that theory.

Evolution is based on the simplest of tenets. Offspring are different from their parents. A particular difference may confer a survival advantage or, more likely, a survival disadvantage. Traits that confer a survival advantage are more likely to be passed on to the offspring's offspring. It takes about 40,000 years, on average, for a speciation event to occur. That's it. That's the entire theory of evolution in a nutshell. It fits with physical evidence because it predicts that it would take a long time for species to diversify in the manner we see today. It fits with the fossil evidence because we don't find mammalian fossils in the same strata as dinosaur fossils (well, except for the few small mammals that did exist around the end of the dinosaur reign)."

I responded with:

'Something "created" (not born) would have the characteristics of something older than than its chronological age. If I was just created, just as I am, I would appear to be 42 years old, not just minutes old.

With respect to the flood, some believe (as I do) that water not only came from the sky but also from underground reservoirs (hence mountains, valleys, volcanoes, etc.). How fish survive in both salt and fresh water is explained by natural evolution where the species changed in variety over time to where we are now (not the crossing and skipping of species as taught in Darwinian evolution). This is compatible with the evolution of man regarding skin color, bone structure, size, weight, etc. It is also seen in the evolution of canines from the wolf to my Labrador Retriever.

This also explains how so many species of animals were taken upon the ark. There just weren't as many varieties of species in those days. Dinosaurs included. There are many examples of terminated species in comparatively recent history (1000 years or so).

The dating process you mention is a very flawed method of dating dynamic material. And food for the ark is simple. They only needed about a years worth. My family use to set aside that much for over 600 cows every year.

It takes more faith to conclude that there is not a creator than to believe that there is. The objective facts of natural science, the creation itself, and the natural yearning of man to know his God all point to a creator. The odds of chance are too random and astronomical.'

And what did you think of my beliefs?

"Randy, I refuse to believe your post came from a college educated person."

Not a very objective, engaging reply, by any measure.

I left you with.........

"I respond to you substantively and you take that kind of shot at me and you expect me to TAKE YOU SERIOUS? Yes, I am college educated and have a couple of post graduate degrees (albeit not in science related subjects). You can disagree if you wish but Nobel prize winning scientists agree with my understanding of creationism.

Just like those that want to believe such tripe as The Davinci Code and similar theories, it is harder to believe the truth than a lie."

So, all you want to do is promote a THEORY that takes a bigger leap of faith to believe than I want to jump.

No, thank you. I tried with you before. I found your intellectual couriosity wanting.

Quote:No, thank you. I tried with you before. I found your intellectual couriosity wanting.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOO. You take as literally true and completely indisputable as 100% correct fact a creation myth written by an agricultural society 4,000 years ago and you think I've got a lack of intellectual curiosity? I suppose next you'll tell me that insufficiently cooked pork makes you sick because it's unclean rather than because of a microbe that's invisible to the naked eye. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

MAKO Wrote:

Quote:No, thank you. I tried with you before. I found your intellectual couriosity wanting.

LMAOOOOOOOOOOO. You take as literally true and completely indisputable as 100% correct fact a creation myth written by an agricultural society 4,000 years ago and you think I've got a lack of intellectual curiosity? I suppose next you'll tell me that insufficiently cooked pork makes you sick because it's unclean rather than because of a microbe that's invisible to the naked eye. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

Nope, just unclean BECAUSE OF invisible microbes.

See, that is your deal. You do not even TRY to see the other side of the argument. You just want to act like the smartest guy in the room and pop off at those that have another view.

I was reared on Creationism, and, as most people should when coming of age, I sincerely looked at the alternatives as a young adult. As a middle aged codger, with about a quarter of a century experience as an adult, I have determined, through diligent study, that the Darwinian, old earth viewpoint is not plausible.

It makes more sense to believe that you can put all of the parts of an automobile into an enclosed trailer, pull that trailer down the highway at 70 MPH, flip it over on a severe curve, open the trailer up, and expect to see an assembled perfectly operating automobile with a glossy paint job than it makes sense that all of the variables the "non-Creationist" have to assume to get to where we are as a system and a society. Too many "accidents" have to fall precisely into place.

I live my life today with an expectation of better things to come and with a higher purpose than I did when I was 20-25 years old. The adversities that have afflicted my wife and me over the past three years (two lost babies during pregnancy, one of those seriously challenging her life and a serious accident to her just over a year ago) were the most recent opportunities to reflect upon and consider our faith in a Creator that loves us and has a plan for our lives. I am thankful for the foundation laid when we were young and impressionable that sustained us through this period and made us stronger in our love for each other and our desire to know our Creator.

You may dismiss this as emotional, unintelligent, unsophisticated superstition worthy of the middle ages. If so, so be it. I wish nothing but the best for you and yours. I just ask you to consider, for a moment, with an open heart and mind the alternative to your world view that all is lost, all is by chance, and that our species is no better than the snakes with the vestigial legs that you seem to believe proves our worthless value here on this earth.

I am not "LMAO" at you as you do me. I have better thoughts for you than derisive scorn.

Randy,

In your example with the automobile your example would fit if an evolutionist said plants and animals evolved first. A single cell had to evolve and yes it is plausible.

Now there is one thing that I do believe a higher power had a hand in. All amino acids in all living things are of one configuration. It's kind of like your left and right hand. It's called L and D configurations. Well in my studies they said for all amino acids to be of this configuration it would be like having to flip heads on a side of a coin millions of times in a row. So whenever I teach evolution I always mention this so I can make it to heaven.

So, for the young earth crowd, evolution and a higher power can go hand in hand. But when someone suggests that the earth is only 6000 yrs. old it seriously dilutes your argument in most people's eyes. It reminds one of the earth is flat society.

It doesn't take any particular brilliance to figure out that 6,000 years just isn't enough time for anything to happen. Same reasoning for Santa Claus. I figured out that there wasn't even enough time for him to get to every single house in my little town even if he only spent one second at each house. If he couldn't finish off a town in WV, he sure as hell couldn't finish off the entire world. I think that was 2nd grade. My rejection of biblical literalism came in the 6th grade and I remember that one distinctly because my teacher called my parents into school to tell them I was going to hell.

The problem with all creationist theories is that the laws of nature had to be different in the past than they are now for the theory to work. Let's look at several examples.

1. In order for us to see the light of galaxies billions of light years away, light had to travel millions of times faster than it does now. More importantly, since we don't observe any detectable slowing in the speed of light now, it had to quit slowing down just at the time we got the ability to measure its speed.

2. Today, we can measure the rate of the movement of the continents. That they are moving is simple fact. Also, by examining rock formations and, quite frankly, by just looking at the shape of say Africa and South America, we know that at one time they were together. To get them thousands of miles apart either took millions of years or it happened much faster in the past and then slowed down just as we got the ability to measure it.

3. I've discussed the orientation of magnetic minerals in rocks and how that orientation is "locked in" once the rock cools from a liquid state. We also know as fact that the orientation of those rocks changes as you move out from where the sea floor is spreading along the mid-Atlantic ridge. We also know that the poles have flipped many times in the past. Creationism offers absolutely no explanation for this regular reversal of magnetic poles. Science does.

4. We know that evolution occurs. Even creationists concede that at least evolution within species occurs although they dispute that new species ever appear. But, creationists offer no explanation of why an intelligent designer would put little, tiny, useless vestigal leg bones in whales and snakes. Science offers a logical theory that is consistent with physical laws. (The use of the term "laws" is somewhat misleading. All physical "laws" are nothing more than theories. Even Newton's "law" of gravity is only partially correct).

Now, I will readily admit that our explanations for the universe and for the diversity of life on earth rest on a few assumptions.

1. The same physical principles that apply on the earth apply everywhere in the universe. Do we have experimental evidence for this? Obviously not. OTOH, neither do we have any evidence that they don't apply and the observations we make are consistent with those physical principles.

2. The same physical principles that apply now applied in the past. Again, we have no evidence of this because we can't travel back in time. But, all of our observations are consistent with this assumption.

3. Miracles don't happen. Any scientific theory must offer an explanation without resorting to miracles. If something is not understood, we must simply admit that we don't understand it. (Example. We have a very good theory for star formation and when we model what our theory says against what we observe, we find that observation agrees with theory. We don't have a very good explanation for galaxy formation. There are numerous theories but all are, at best, incomplete).

BTW, been throught the lost pregnancy thing myself twice now and it ain't an easy time so I understand exactly what that's like.