just let them believe in creationism

reply to post by fmcanarney


The big bang has nothing to do with evolution. That is a seperate scientific theory.

And not knowing the answers through the scientific method does not mean "God did it". You want evidence from science, yet when it comes to God doing it, you don't need any evidence. Can you not see the hypocritical double-standard you are employing?

Rational human beings are fine with the answer "We don't know. Yet.". On the other hand, you and many others seem petrified by this admission of not knowing, and have to jam a God or two in there before the boogeyman gets you. It's as if you are incapable of realising that all knowledge isn't imparted in a split-second. We are on a journey of enlightenment, which started when the first proto-human looked at something and scratched his head, right up to this day when his relatives are powering up the Large Hadron Collider. If the proto-human thought 'God did it', we'd probably be firing up the Large Heretic Collider instead, having suspended the need to actually learn anything, and used man-made bronze-age dogma to 'explain' everything. Genius.

pantheism=creator is in everything
monotheism=one creator
polytheism=many creators
atheism=no creator

I am not petrified of very many things.

I trace the beginning back to: Where did all of the mass of the known universe come from.
skip the last 1-500 billion years.
where did it originate from.
from nothing?

See I am cool with evolution. Except it leaves off at what started it in the first place?

Originally posted by Slothrop
.........................

it's really no skin off my back. the smarter kids will immediately dismiss whatever creationist propaganda is taught in public schools and get on with their studies. as for the dumber kids....i really don't care if the guy who changes my oil or takes my order at quizno's believes the earth is 5000 years old and that dinosaur bones were just put inside the earth to test our faith. as long as they can change my oil and make my change, eh.

creationism v evolution is a total non-issue

Unless it's your president.. or the person that decides the fate of your life.. like a judge.. or jury of your fellow peers.

I am not so much defending creationists, because either way you look there's no conclusive answer.

But I think this is a negative view on the other people that share this planet with you? so what is it to you that someone is happy changing oil or working a cash register?
Who do you think you are that you can debase these people and those professions?

Now with the whole creationist thing.. it is obviously some skin off your back or you wouldn't have posted.. it wouldn't have entered your mind, but it interests/frustrates you so you chose to share your opinion, now there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but maybe control your approach.

Belief systems don't necessarily equate to intelligence, I agree though that having a closed mind and believing in a single "system" isn't a very intelligent approach to comprehending and understanding in the place we live in because it is so varied, unpredictable and changes drastically.

Bashing creationists because you may or may not have been absorbed in that particular dogma and finally learned something in addition to that isn't going to expand your knowledge further, realizing that creationism isn't the end all and be all of everything isn't the "end" either.. it's merely the beginning to further understanding this grand "Reality"

Except that I do have evidence of GOD.

Originally posted by fmcanarney

The Science Behind Intelligent Design Theory
Intelligent design is a scientific theory which has its roots in information theory and observations about intelligent action. Intelligent design theory makes inferences based upon observations about the types of complexity that can be produced by the action of intelligent agents vs. the types of information that can be produced through purely natural processes to infer that life was designed by an intelligence or multiple intelligences. It makes no statements about the identity of the intelligent designer(s), but merely says that intelligent action was involved at some points with the origins of various aspects of biological life.
Figure 1. Diagram showing different processes which can produced entities: natural processes (chance-law based processes), intelligent design, or unknown natural laws. Only within intelligent design theory is specified complexity, and a special case of specified complexity--irreducible complexity--found. Thus, at this point, intelligent design theory exclusively predicts that specified complex information will be found.
Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information that we can observe produced by intelligent agents in the real world. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."1 Dawkins would say that natural selection is what actually did the "designing," however intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer rightly notes that, "ndeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."3 Thus, like any true scientific theory, intelligent design theory begins with empirical observations from the natural world.

I guess you didn't read... what I said before. Intelligent design has been proven to not be a scientific theory in the court of law because it can't be tested. Referring to an intelligent design "scientist" quote as proof that a whole populous of scientists believe in a theory (I assume you are trying to answer my question with that quote somehow) is incomprehensible. That would be like me saying all humans are atheists because I am.

Source

The unequivocal consensus in the scientific community is that intelligent design is pseudoscience.[13][14][15][16] The U.S. National Academy of Sciences has stated that "creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science."[17] The American Association for the Advancement of Science says "intelligent design has not been demonstrated to be a scientific theory."[18] The US National Science Teachers Association and the American Association for the Advancement of Science have termed it pseudoscience.[19] Others have concurred, and some have called it junk science.[20]

[13a] [13b] [13c] [13d] [13e] [13f] [13g] [13h] [13i] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19a] [19b] [19c] [20a] [20b] [20c]


[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

If evolution is correct then where are the fossil records of the transition species linking lower forms of life to lets say amphibians to reptiles to mammals

Take language as something that can be known by intelligence.
Someone created the first word, sentence, paragraph,
which after evolving has become language.
Therefore someone who has hever learned to speak, someong who was not exposed to language would listen to the words and think, gee there seems to be an intelligence contained in those sounds. They would of course be unable to articulate those thoughts but humans have done the same things by listening to animals.

“Education has failed in a very serious way to convey the most important lesson science can teach: skepticism”
-David Suzuki, Canadian Environmentalist and Scientist
And the evolution theory as espoused by Darwin has been what has exclusively been taught to the overwhelming majority of students for the past fifty years.

There is unnatural selection in creating a integral pocket watch.
Same with atomic power, which would not exist without intelligent design.
Natural selection is not a complete explaination of the complexity of the universe or even for that matter a molecule of water.

Originally posted by fmcanarney
If evolution is correct then where are the fossil records of the transition species linking lower forms of life to lets say amphibians to reptiles to mammals

Amphibians to Reptiles

The main character that separates amphibians (primitive tetrapods) from reptiles (amniotes) is possession of an amnion, which does not fossilize. We have a lot of Permian creatures; some are early amniotes and some likely are not. There are no unambiguous intermediates between the two groups like Acanthostega between fish and tetrapods, or Morganucodon between reptiles and mammals. However, the same uncertainty means there is no clear gap between the amphibians and reptiles, either.

That essentially means it hard to tell the fossils apart because they are very similar. The main characteristic that separates amphibians from reptiles in their bone struct is the amnion, which doesn't fossilize.

Hylonomus is the oldest-known reptile, and was about 8 to 12 inches (20 to 30 cm) long. Westlothiana has been suggested as the oldest reptile, but is for the moment considered to be more related to amphibians than amniotes. Petrolacosaurus and Mesosaurus are other examples. The earliest reptiles were found in the swamp forests of the Carboniferous, but were largely overshadowed by bigger labyrinthodont amphibians such as Proterogynrius. It was only after the small ice age at the end of the Carboniferous that the reptiles grew to big sizes, producing species such as Edaphosaurus and Dimetrodon.

You can also refer to this link for more info about amphibians to reptile transitions.

Reptiles to Mammals

The transition from reptile to mammal has an excellent record. The following fossils are just a sampling. In particular, these fossils document the transition of one type of jaw joint into another. Reptiles have one bone in the middle ear and several bones in the lower jaw. Mammals have three bones in the middle ear and only one bone in the lower jaw. These species show transitional jaw-ear arrangements (Hunt 1997; White 2002b). The sequence shows transitional stages in other features, too, such as skull, vertebrae, ribs, and toes.

1. Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
2. Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
3. Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
4. Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
5. Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
6. Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
7. Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
8. Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).

[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]

Talk Origins is a great resource, you should browse it.

Edit: Added addition links

Edit:
So. spamming the board with random subjects that I have already talked about and given possible solutions for is your method now? Pocket watches don't evolve because they are inorganic and don't have any way to procreate, among other things. That teleological argument is full of holes. You see, the difference between all the things you're talking about is that we have proof we exist, you and I. No one can say for sure that god does.

This is going to be a never-ending circle.


[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Modern evolutionists insist that evolution is so supported by facts that disbelievers are ignorant or dishonest.
From the story in William Steig book: "Two wooden figures suddenly wake up and find themselves lying in the sun on an old newspaper. One is Pink the other is Yellow.
Suddenly Yellow says," Do you know what we are doing here?"
Pink "No, I dont even remember getting here."
They begin a heated debate over their origin.
Pink, "Someone had to have made us."
Yellow, "I say we were an accident." Here is how it happened, a branch might have broken off a tree and in falling hit a sharp rock splitting one end and forming the two legs. Then the wind sent it tumbling down a hill till it was chipped and shaped. With enough time and perhaps lightening formed the arms, and woodpeckers the eyes, why with enough time say one million years, ten million years, lots of unusual things could happen.
the continue to argue.
The discussion is interrupted by the appearance of a man coming out of a house picking up the two figures and saying "Dry enough." The man tucks them under his arm and walks back inside.
Peeking out from under the mans arm Pink asks Yellow Who is this guy?"
William Steig "Yellow and Pink", New York, Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 1984

Umm, OK? What was the point of that illogical and unscientific story?

"So. spamming the board with random subjects that I have already talked about and given possible solutions for is your method now? Pocket watches don't evolve because they are inorganic and don't have any way to procreate, among other things. That teleological argument is full of holes. You see, the difference between all the things you're talking about is that we have proof we exist, you and I. No one can say for sure that god does."
So what are your ideas, nothing but your attempt to impose your world view on others. It has no meaning and no ultimate value. It is just because you selected it to solve your problem of Who am I and Why am I here. Evolutionist paradigm is materialistic. The rules that define what is scientific in the first place were crafted by materialistic persons so as to only produce materialistic results and materialiastic theories. That in itself is incestous.
In other words Humans have an intrinsic value that transcends plants and animals.

So what are your ideas, nothing but your attempt to impose your world view on others.

Isn't that exactly what you're doing? People ask questions, and I give reasonable scientific answers that are verifiable and falsifiable. You can give all of the spiritual answers you want and not refer to science as being false, but you choose not to, it seems. It leaves me no choice but to defend myself.

It has no meaning and no ultimate value. It is just because you selected it to solve your problem of Who am I and Why am I here. Evolutionist paradigm is materialistic. The rules that define what is scientific in the first place were crafted by materialistic persons so as to only produce materialistic results and materialiastic theories. That in itself is incestous.
In other words Humans have an intrinsic value that transcends plants and animals.

You write a lot, but don't say much. Science is materialistic. That's science. I am sorry if you don't like it, but that's it. Science tests what is real and plausible, not untestable and undefinable. I'm not sure if this ultimately makes science materialistic because we can test for things like dark energy, dark matter, black holes etc. that aren't in our immediate vicinity to experience physically. However, we can reasonable discern that we observe them and can measure them from afar.

If you're looking for something that is spiritual in nature and deals with supernatural topics, you won't find it from real science. You may want to look in to some pseudoscience for that.

Edit: How much goalpost moving is there going to be in this discussion? I am curious as to where the discussion will go to next.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Yes exactly, to impose the world view on others. That is all an idea is.
Materialism and science is responsible for a majority of the social problems we have in the world, no?
You see in the end the creationist world view is superior to the scientific world view.
My ultimate proof is that I was electrocuted to death fifteen years ago.
My soul, intrinsically superior to plant and animal, left my physical body.
My physical vision instantaneously changed to "spiritual vision" and I could see as if my being possessed a spherical eye at its center.
There were twin guardian spirit beings who asked me in spirit if I wanted to die.
I replied no.
They then, in conspiracy to my free will, allowed or made my spirit transpire back into my physical body, and imparted to me three things. 1. Everything would be okay. 2. How to get off of the pole and away from the electricity. and 3. Cant remember what the third thing was right now.

Materialism and science is responsible for a majority of the social problems we have in the world, no?

Uhh, no? What are you even talking about here? It's funny that you make this claim, and then in another thread (or was it this one?) someone claimed that the catholic church was the inventor of the scientific method. By your train of thought, this means the catholic church is the cause of all the social problems in the world, if you combine the two views.

You see in the end the creationist world view is superior to the scientific world view.

Your opinion, you're welcome to it.

My ultimate proof is that I was electrocuted to death fifteen years ago.
My soul, intrinsically superior to plant and animal, left my physical body.
My physical vision instantaneously changed to "spiritual vision" and I could see as if my being possessed a spherical eye at its center.
There were twin guardian spirit beings who asked me in spirit if I wanted to die.
I replied no.
They then, in conspiracy to my free will, allowed or made my spirit transpire back into my physical body, and imparted to me three things. 1. Everything would be okay. 2. How to get off of the pole and away from the electricity. and 3. Cant remember what the third thing was right now.

That's fantastic, I hope it works for you.

[edit on 29-8-2008 by OnionCloud]

Science has served us with pollution of all kinds, garbage, light, noise, water, all products of materialistic science generating materialistic consumption.
And who will win in competing for an ear of corn in the future, the man needing gasoline for his car or the hungry child in India?