In U.S., 46% Hold Creationist View of Human Origins

reply to post by INDOMITABLE


So do you agree that the Bible, old and new testement is not the infalible word of God,

reply to post by INDOMITABLE


The entire video is an example of "god of the gaps"

And yes, evolution is proven...that's why it's a scientific theory and actively applied in modern medicine

Originally posted by MrXYZ
reply to post by INDOMITABLE

 

The entire video is an example of "god of the gaps"

And yes, evolution is proven...that's why it's a scientific theory and actively applied in modern medicine

everything's proven, so long as you can understand the experiment..

try unifying theories, you'd be surprised at the results =)

reply to post by AliceBlackman


Sure just as one example,

In order for the Big bang theory to be viable they insist on Living organisms spontaneously arising out of non living matter.

There are number of problems with this concept even on the surface. But when one actually gets into the details it becomes a laughable assumption to any truly open minded or logical person.

In that video that was posted which described the big bang theory from beginning to end in 18 minutes. He talks about DNA self originating in the very first living organisms where it had not previously existed at all. He claims this just magically happened as if it is no small thing and an obvious known fact. Well lets look at the living cell to see if this could just so obviously happen by chance.

First, there is no known mechanism nor even theory presented by which the complex structure of the DNA strand, the Double helix could just randomly self construct itself within the first living cell when previously there was nothing similar to it. This act of Magic is just Assumed to have happened and the odds of molecules arranging in this matter randomly are so small as to be virtually impossible.

Second even if the above did happen randomly, the Living cell is a complex thing with many moving parts. The double helix structure would be useless with out mechanisms in place to read the information contained within it and sucessfully execute its directions. Each of these mechanisms are specifically designed to accomplish the tasks that are necessary for a living cell to function. If just one of these necessary mechanisms was missing, the cell could not function and would be untenable. The odds of these mechanisms randomly self originating at exactly the same time as the DNA strand is beyond plausibility.

Thirdly, Even if all of the above randomly happened at precisely the same time so as to allow the first living cell to actually be ALIVE... there is an even bigger problem presented. The double helix structure and all the necessary mechanisms present in the living cell are useless without the direction of the Massive amounts of detailed and specific instructions and information encoded into the DNA strand itself. Where did the information come from?

If you took all the chromosomes in an average human body and stretched it out in a chain, it would extend back and forth to the moon 200,000 times. There is an enormous amount of genetic information encoded in the human body. Its takes a massive amount of detailed instructions to produced the human form, starting with just a sperm cell and an egg.

The point being that for all the massive amounts of detailed information to have self originated, self compiled, and self organized in a useful and meaningful manner randomly with no direction is ludacris. There is no way to give any frame of reference for how low the odds would be for this to have happened... it is to be blunt, impossible.

Not to mention that even if all of the above did happen to magically self originate at exactly the same time to allow a living cell to exist. There is still the problem of how the cell itself is able to make sense of the Genetic code. It is a biological language that the cell intuitively understands, is able to decipher and correctly execute. This in itself denotes intelligence at work in the design of the living cell. The biological language is hard coded in every living organism. Without the ability to decipher the information, all the information would be completely useless.

In spite of this, the proponents of the Big bang/ evolutionary theory just assume that these things came to pass with NO design or Intelligent direction whatsoever.. just by chance. And this is just ONE of many examples that should be discussed by anyone who is actually interested in using science and observation to prove whether or not the anti-God theory is workable or tenable.

Many of the problems arise when considering systems that are interdependant on each other. the Living cell is just one example where it is NOT possible for each different mechanism or component to have evolved slowly... over time. All the components of the Cell are needed for the cell to survive at all. Thus it speaks strongly toward the notion that all these mechanisms where originated at same time and this does not fit with the nonsense that is the Evolutionary theory of life springing up from non living matter.


Soul

Originally posted by AliceBlackman
reply to post by INDOMITABLE

 

So do you agree that the Bible, old and new testement is not the infalible word of God,

The Bible is the infallible word of God.

To the Mrxyz. You have yet to show any of the evidence you require of everyone else.

How is it possible to say evolution is proven and yet call it a theory in the same sentence. SMH Stop repeating everything you hear.

I am still trying to understand how people accept it when their teachers say humans evolved from a single cell organism, that was itself somehow created. Given time it evolved to create complex organisms and eventually man. As far as the universe goes, well, there was a bang and it was big. Ya see.

Chew and Swallow. Nevermind don't chew. Just swallow it and repeat it.

You fail to realize that God is not in the gaps, He is in everything. God explained (in the Bible) bacteria and diseases thousands of years before science did. Many plagues could have been prevented had people been able to read their Bible.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
The Bible is the infallible word of God.

Leviticus 11:6 - "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

The bible claims that hares (a lagomorph) are ruminants (artiodactyls). We know it's talking about rumination because of the context. The hare is being directly compared to ruminating mammals. Now, are hares ruminants? No. Hares DO NOT chew cud.

Here we see a simply scientific claim, and it's wrong. The bible is fallible.

Two great examples of classic creationist fails,

First one doesn't know the difference between the big bang,abiogenisis or the theory of evolution.

Second one thinks evolution is 'just' a theory.

Originally posted by PieKeeper

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
The Bible is the infallible word of God.

Leviticus 11:6 - "And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

The bible claims that hares (a lagomorph) are ruminants (artiodactyls). We know it's talking about rumination because of the context. The hare is being directly compared to ruminating mammals. Now, are hares ruminants? No. Hares DO NOT chew cud.

Here we see a simply scientific claim, and it's wrong. The bible is fallible.

There is enough information on this verse on the internet for you to understand that it is a cultural and translation error than it being purely false. Times change as do meanings.

Hares eat their own poop so its not good for you to them eat them. That is basically what the verse is saying. No Hares are not ruminants per se, but those are purely modern technical terms which the Bible doesn't use.

How can you hold a book that is thousands of years old to terms recently invented. The basic point of the verse still stands, even if the way we translate it is culturally inaccurate.

Here is a link for you to investigate further.

creation.com...

Originally posted by Prezbo369
Two great examples of classic creationist fails,

First one doesn't know the difference between the big bang,abiogenisis or the theory of evolution.

Second one thinks evolution is 'just' a theory.

Quote From Wikipedia

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, which is measured by its ability to make falsifiable predictions with respect to those phenomena. Theories are improved as more evidence is gathered, so that accuracy in prediction improves over time. Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.
Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3] This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.[5]

A fail is not knowing that a scientific theory is still a theory.

It is not a law.
It cannot be set in stone.
It is not absolute.
And it is not infallible.

It changes and evolves right along with your evolution. A theory 30 years ago may not even resemble the same theory today, even if it has the same name.

A theory has no proof, only evidence that supports it.

Scientist are notorious for having evidence and yet coming to the wrong conclusions. One of the biggest I can think of is: Dietary cholesterol causes High Cholesterol. There is correlation, but not causation. There is evidence, but no proof. Many studies decades old have been proven wrong, because the wrong conclusion was reached.

I should point out that people still believe this 'til this day, despite the available evidence.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE

Hares eat their own poop so its not good for you to them eat them. That is basically what the verse is saying. No Hares are not ruminants per se, but those are purely modern technical terms which the Bible doesn't use.

How can you hold a book that is thousands of years old to terms recently invented. The basic point of the verse still stands, even if culturally inaccurate.

That's a nice dodge, but rumination is different than coprophagy. The coprophagous hare is being directly compared to the ruminating artiodactyls in saying "Yes, it chews cud like the others do, but it doesn't have hooves."

Which brings us back to this:

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
The Bible is the infallible word of God.

If it was infallible, shouldn't it stand through time without error? Why does it make such a basic error? They could have used distinctively clear terminology. Furthermore, shouldn't the translators have realized this error? Or is it, after all, men who wrote and translated the bible without divine guidance?

Well, we're a part of creation are we not? I would hope that at least some people knew that in this insane world.

reply to post by PieKeeper


That is not what the verse is saying. It is not comparing Hares to them at all and it not saying they are in the same group.

It references split hooves because God was trying to teach them how to differentiate between what they should eat and what they shouldn't. In many animals you could tell by their diet and by their feet.

In this case the verse is saying that Hares do not fit two of the criteria so basically it is not fit for consumption.

1.They will eat their poop.
2.They don't have split hooves

This is also why Jews, Muslims and many Christians do not eat pigs, for the above reasons.

Have you ever watched the show Monsters Inside Me?
That is what happens when people eat things the Bible says are unclean. I was amazed as I watched story after story of people being infested with parasites by eating food that the Bible clearly says is unclean.

I was thinking, wow this is amazing. The Bible said this stuff wasn't fit for consumption thousands of years ago and science still hasn't caught up. These rules weren't set to control the Jews, but to ensure that they would be healthy.

In Response to Below:
If the hare ate its poop but had split hooves, it would be alright. That is what I am taking from the "but".

reply to post by INDOMITABLE


Read it again. It's saying "because he cheweth the cud" (as in, because the rabbit chews cud,) "but divideth not the hoof," (as in, he chews cud BUT doesn't have split hooves).

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
If the hare ate its poop but had split hooves, it would be alright. That is what I am taking from the "but".

edit on 10-6-2012 by INDOMITABLE because: (no reason given)

This is exactly what I'm saying, except it does not say the rabbit is a coprophagist. It uses the same terms to describe ruminants as it does the hare.

Leviticus 11:4 - "Nevertheless these shall ye not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the hoof: as the camel, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean to you."

"As the camel", saying "animals like the camel chew cud but divideth not the hoof." We have a direct comparison to ruminant animals.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
Have you ever watched the show Monsters Inside Me?
That is what happens when people eat things the Bible says are unclean. I was amazed as I watched story after story of people being infested with parasites by eating food that the Bible clearly says is unclean.

I was thinking, wow this is amazing. The Bible said this stuff wasn't fit for consumption thousands of years ago and science still hasn't caught up. These rules weren't set to control the Jews, but to ensure that they would be healthy.

You can get parasites from eating any undercooked meat. You can even get parasites and deadly infections from eating undercooked beef (surprise!) The bible actually gives a trivial set of standards for food consumption. If prepared properly, you're relatively safe. Hares eating their own feces doesn't make them unfit to eat, you're probably fine as long as you prepare it properly.

"Taenia saginata (beef tapeworm) and Taenia solium (pork tapeworm) are parasitic worms (helminths). Taeniasis is the name of the intestinal infection caused by adult-stage tapeworms (beef or pork tapeworms)."

www.fsis.usda.gov...

Originally posted by PieKeeper
If it was infallible, shouldn't it stand through time without error? Why does it make such a basic error? They could have used distinctively clear terminology. Furthermore, shouldn't the translators have realized this error? Or is it, after all, men who wrote and translated the bible without divine guidance?

I hold that it's infallible in the sense that it's holistic i.e. a theological arrow of time where each discrete step contributes in advancing man's rational/moral nature before culminating in the Logos/Christ as an image to imitate.

Earlier steps appear more barbaric and anthropic because its geological time was more barbaric and anthropic. This spiritual evolutionary aspect also explains apparent inconsistencies like God's change of character from the Old Testament to the New Testament: God didn't change, we evolved.

The truths it teaches, to love your neighbor as yourself, and to recognize that God is love, are as timeless as I can imagine.

reply to post by Lionhearte


Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.

The origin of new species by evolution has also been observed, both in the laboratory and in the wild. See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220).


Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species, etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming.

What hasn't been observed is one animal abruptly changing into a radically different one, such as a frog changing into a cow. This is not a problem for evolution because evolution doesn't propose occurrences even remotely like that. In fact, if we ever observed a frog turn into a cow, it would be very strong evidence against evolution.

reply to INDOMITABLE


From your Wikipedia quote....

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Then in the very next sentence you say

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
A fail is not knowing that a scientific theory is still a theory.

Thats what the kids call an EPIC fail

Don't you read what you post?

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
It is not a law.

SIgh..... more from wiki (read it all)

A scientific law is a generalized formulation of the recurring observable tendencies of nature. Laws are based observations of events or processes that occur regularly and repeatedly under a defined set of conditions. Evolutionary laws are the demonstrated consequences of theoretical mechanisms, such as natural selection, neutral theory, niche construction, or other scientific theories. Branches in the diversity of life are the particular outcomes of the laws of evolution.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
It is not absolute.

Nothing is....

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
And it is not infallible.

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
It changes and evolves right along with your evolution.

But I thought you said evolution was just a theory........

Originally posted by INDOMITABLEA theory 30 years ago may not even resemble the same theory today, even if it has the same name.

This is interesting, do you have any examples of scientific theories that have changed so much that they no longer even resemble original theories and still hold the same name?

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
A theory has no proof, only evidence that supports it.

In your opinion how much evidence is required before it becomes proof? the same amount a court of law requires before we sentence someone to death?

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
Scientist are notorious for having evidence and yet coming to the wrong conclusions. One of the biggest I can think of is: Dietary cholesterol causes High Cholesterol. There is correlation, but not causation. There is evidence, but no proof. Many studies decades old have been proven wrong, because the wrong conclusion was reached.

Ignoring the fact you're comparing the theory of evolution with......cholesterol, can you provide any links to any scientific theories that made such claims?

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
I should point out that people still believe this 'til this day, despite the available evidence.

I don't know about you, but where I'm from all of this (scientific theories, evolution, cholesterol) is common knowledge..........maybe its a regional education thing.......

Originally posted by Prezbo369
reply to INDOMITABLE

 

From your Wikipedia quote....

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.This is significantly different from the word “theory” in common usage, which implies that something is unproven or speculative.

Then in the very next sentence you say

Originally posted by INDOMITABLE
A fail is not knowing that a scientific theory is still a theory.

Thats what the kids call an EPIC fail

Don't you read what you post?

You will completely miss the point of this post as you did the last.

The point of my last post is that it is still a theory. I didn't need a drawn out reply. Evolution is not concrete no matter what technical terms(scientific law) are used to define it.

I read the wikipedia post. My point was despite that it is the most "comprehensive form scientific knowledge" that doesn't make it a fact. That was the fail. If it were a fact it couldn't be changed or altered.

When something is the truth, everything opposed to it must be false and the truth cannot be altered if it is the truth. A universal law is the truth. It cannot be changed or altered. That was my point in saying a scientific theory is still the same as a theory, even if Wikipedia says its not. You missed that.

I am not a scientist, but even so I know that something that is regarded as true today can be deemed false tomorrow.
The theory of relativity has changed.
Even the theory of evolution has changed as evolutionary thought has changed.
The whole point of the scientific theory, as your wikipedia post declares, is that changes can be made to make the theory more accurate over time. So it is not concrete, it is not universally applicable. It is a work in progress, a grain of sand.

From your wikipedia quote.

A scientific law is a generalized formulation of the recurring observable tendencies of nature.Laws are based observations of events or processes that occur regularly and repeatedly under a defined set of conditions. Evolutionary laws are the demonstrated consequences of theoretical mechanisms, such as natural selection, neutral theory, niche construction, or other scientific theories.

The key word here is observable. Of Darwins 5 "Laws" only two of them can be observed. The next point is that if "evolutionary laws are demonstrated consequences of theoretical mechanisms." then the laws themselves are based on scientific theory and scientific theories change.

www.zeroinginonhealth.com... If you read the last 3 paragraphs you will get the gist of the cholesterol debate.

You can continue to argue semantics all day, my point stays the same. Evolution is not concrete. I don't care what scientist say.

Look at all the Atheists run and hide when it comes down to discussing the actual details of thier favorite fairy tale.

You guys wield only mockery and ridicule. When it comes down to actually discussing Science using our intellects, you all run away and hide from the facts.

As it turns out Science is the greatest enemy of the Atheist.

You have no response for the challange to the fairy tale that i presented here

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Where is your Proven Science to explain the jump from non living matter to living matter without conceding that there must have been outside direction and design involved?

Why are you so afraid of your supposedly proven theory being put to the test? What happened to being open minded and subjecting all view points to the rigors of observation and logical deductions?

Why are you so afraid to educate yourselfs on the actual odds of your assumptions being correct?

Why are you so afraid of people who live According to Faith?
Why are you so afraid of Christians when our religion is supposedly fading and destined to the footnotes of history?

Why are you incapable of discussing the glaring ineptitudes of the most commonly presented secular theories?

Why do you fall silent?
Where has the courage of the atheists gone?

Soul

Looks like this whole South Korea thing is simply just more Darwinist propaganda.

If you were to just read the Nature article, and not put on your baloney detector, what you would walk away with is the idea that the entirety of evolutionary theory has been scrubbed from South Korea’s textbooks.

What has happened?

Basically, what appears to have happened, is that South Korea, like many other countries, has science textbooks that include arguments for evolution and ideas about evolution that evolutionists themselves have disowned. That means their only purpose in the textbooks (since evolutionists have disowned them), is to prop up a theory for ideological reasons. A group petitioned to have the arguments removed that have been discredited by the evolutionists themselves. Then the arguments were removed, and, in some cases, replaced by newer, better arguments.

Sounds Reasonable no matter what your belief.

What Nature failed to tell you, for instance, is that one textbook publisher agreed that the horse series was a bad example, and put in the whale series instead. In fact, many of the textbooks did reviews and agreed that the examples were out of date. What did they do? Removed them or updated them! Isn’t that what is *supposed* to happen with out-of-date material?

I imagine that if an evolutionist had made the exact same request Nature would have had no problem with it.

Darwinian Demagogues (like Nature Publishing Group) are mad not because the changes are bad, but simply because a creationist made them. Because, when you are a demagogue, conceding any point is not allowed. Creationists are simply wrong by definition, and it doesn’t matter what they actually say or argue. Even if they agree with you they are in error. So they must be stopped, and their every action must be questioned, even if it was something that both sides agree should have been done anyway.

All too true.

The last paragraph from article from Korea.

The experts blame the passive and reactive approaches by the scientific community. The professor of genomics at Seoul National University Jang Dae-ik said ‘the problem is that the writers of the science textbooks have neglected the new materials on the theory of evolution over the several decades. It even contains the references to Ernst Haeckel’s recapitulation theory (ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny, get it?) which has been disproven a long time ago. This kind of lapse in up-to-date knowledge invites such an attack [from the CREIT].’

Perhaps the rest of the world should follow the example, Your textbooks are still filled with outdated and disproven examples.

One more comment.

In other words, the evolutionists haven’t bothered to keep the textbooks up-to-date with evolution, and it became so bad that the creationists had to point it out to us before we got anything done.

Now, the big problem in all this, is the very disingenuous way that Nature wrote about it. I’m not sure anything in the article is directly untrue, but they leave out so much information, and write it with such a slanted perspective, that literally the *entire* blogosphere believes that South Korea has removed evolution from their textbooks!

While this is not conclusive, It certainly appears the Nature Piece does not support the facts, evolution has not been stripped from the textbooks it has been updated!

It's Just more Darwinian Propaganda, It seems as though all were in agreement on the issue in Korea.

www.uncommondescent.com...