Chris Matthews Mocks Republicans Who Believe In Creation, Leaves Out 1/3 of Dems, Independents Believe Same
A new Gallup poll is out showing that 40 percent of Americans believe that "God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so" while 38 percent believe "God guided [the] process" of evolution and only 16 percent believe evolution happened without any help from God.
Among the poll's findings was that a full 37 percent with a college degree and a full 22 percent with a postgraduate degree believe in creation.
Yet today, MSNBC's Chris Matthews sought to seize on another demographic stat from the poll to make the issue a partisan one and to mock Republicans as scientifically illiterate. In doing so he made a gaffe illustrating how behind the times he is when it comes to anthropological discoveries scientists link to human evolution:
Now to tonight's Big Number.
In a new Gallup poll, 40 percent of Americans say they believe in strict creationism, that humans were created by God within the last 10,000 years, as in the Bible.
Well, how do you explain all those dinosaur bones, I ask? How do you explain your oldest living relative, our oldest living relative? Don't you love Lucy?! No surprise, that number is higher among Republicans, by the way. How high? Fifty-two percent!
A majority of Republicans, more than half the Republicans reject the science behind evolution. Fifty-two percent, tonight's Big Number.
Think about that one during the [2012 presidential] primaries.
Let's first look at Matthews' dopey gaffe -- calling the "Lucy" fossil human beings' "oldest living relative."
For one thing, Lucy is a) a fossil which means she's no longer living and hasn't been for a long, long time, and b) not even the oldest one scientists theorize is related to homo sapiens.
That distinction would go to Ardi, a fossil that is 1.2 million years older than Lucy.
Ardi was discovered in 1994, Lucy in the 1970s. Apparently Chris hasn't gotten the memo these 16 years.
More importantly, the same poll found that 34 percent of both Democrats and independents believed in the creationism, six points lower than the national average but still a respectable full third of those voting groups.
It's impossible for Matthews to mock Republicans for believing in creation without also attacking a fair plurality of Democrats and independents, many of them liberal, for similar beliefs.
- Ken Shepherd's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
52 percent to 34 percent.
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 7:57pm.
52 percent to 34 percent. Sounds like a significant difference to me. I don't see the part where he is mocking Republicans as "scientifically illiterate" though.
I don't much care what you
Submitted by Roscoe on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:56pm.
I don't much care what you think it sounds like. Significance is determined through statistical methods, so stop being rhetorical. If you want, I can chime in and say 0 to 34 also sounds like a significant difference, yet Matthews makes no mention of it. As for your "scientifically illiterate" comment, it is quite easy to sense Matthews' intended meaning when he derisively questions a Republican straw man about dinosaur bones and Lucy. Also, the "no surprise, that number is higher among Republicans" comment implies a pre-existing belief that would result in a lack of surprise. That pre-existing belief would no doubt be that Republicans don't know about scientific evidence for evolution (ie. scientifically illiterate) or at the very least an inabilitiy to explain them.
It's not my own opinion
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:08am.
It's not my own opinion that the results are statistically significant. It's Gallup's opinion:
"The significantly higher percentage of Republicans who choose a creationist view of human origins reflects in part the strong relationship between religion and politics in contemporary America."
Regardless, you were still
Submitted by Roscoe on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:04pm.
Regardless, you were still being rhetorical and as I said in my original post, 34% is also significantly greater than zero, yet no comment from our good friend.
I'm not sure what your
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:16pm.
I'm not sure what your complaint is about. I do think you're reading something into what Mr. Matthews was saying. I took his meaning to be: A shockingly high percentage of Americans don't believe in evolution; and significantly more Republicans than Democrats don't believe in evolution.
Excuse me...
Submitted by Rukus on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 5:27pm.
But shouldn't you be flailing around in the incest thread, where you seem to be comfortable?
Rukus
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:41am.
I've got nothing more to say about incest. If you have a question, post it there, and maybe somebody will respond.
Huh?
Submitted by scarebear83 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:04pm.
"Well, how do you explain all those dinosaur bones, I ask?" I could tell him, but he'd just wave it off as being ignorant or anti-science.He said the part in quotes.
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:11pm.
He said the part in quotes. But the second sentence is your own spin.
I understand that. I just
Submitted by scarebear83 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:11pm.
I understand that. I just said "huh?" Because I thought someone as smart as he would understand the creationist point of view on how we have dinosaur fossils today. I then said I could explain it to him but like most evolutionists, they would say I'm crazy and/or ignorant of the "facts" and incapable of thinking logically.
I see. Thanks for
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:18pm.
I see. Thanks for explaining.
Darwins theory of evolution
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:05pm.
Darwins theory of evolution that life has evolved from lower life forms by slow adaptation over millions of years is not supported by actual science. If it were true then we would be finding lots of transitional life forms everywhere. This is not the case. Even the fossil record shows that the rise of new species happens suddenly and in complete forms.
That can be explained by
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:17pm.
That can be explained by mutation, or by transitional life forms becoming extinct. E.g., if birds glided before they flew, the gliders would die out once there are fliers to compete with them.
So transitional lifeforms
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:24pm.
So transitional lifeforms never became fossils?
But is Darwinian evolution still occurring today? Where are todays transitional life forms? There should be thousands of them.
Evolution will always be
Submitted by Thoreau on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:37pm.
Evolution will always be served, but it has nothing to do with life forms magically appearing out of nowhere. The dinosaurs are a documented example of this. 165 million years and they never rubbed two sticks together to make a fire.
Darwin works slowly. Because animals die off doesn't mean something new pops out of thin air. They had to be there in the first place or else you wouldn't have squat in the fossil record. Darwin's theory never described such a thing, which is what you were trying to explain as well.
Seeing the Hosts on MSNBC
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:12am.
makes me wonder if they didn't actually come about through some genetic ooze in a swamp somewhere.
Well......
Submitted by GregE on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:27pm.
"Where are todays transitional life forms?"
http://www.tshirtwatch.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/janeane_garof...
Mutation is a result of a
Submitted by Jerry on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:58pm.
Mutation is a result of a LOSS of genetic information. Mutation manifests itself in deformities that are not conducive to survival. Mutations could never lead to the "next greatest version" of any organism.
If Darwin's theory of evolution were true, there should be billions of transitional forms, not only in the fossil record, but also living today. Darwin stated as much himself, that if his theory were to be true, they had to find transitional forms in the fossil record. FAIL.
There are mosquitoes in the prehistoric record, there are mosquitoes today. There are turtles in the prehistoric record, there are turtles today. Where's the evolution?
God created each to it's own kind... ie. species. Once an ape, always an ape. Once a man, always a man. They can adapt to their environmental conditions through natural selection, but they will NEVER morph into another creature.
I'll ignore the nonsense
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:48am.
concerning "loss of information", transitional forms and why there can't be evolution because there are turtles today and some 100 million years ago.
Concerning this subject I'll just post some thoughts of Darwin himself:
"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. "
Wow
Submitted by HelenS on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:10am.
...well at least you had the courage to give yourself an honest user name.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
You
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:56am.
should checkout my picture.
Nice likeness of James Carville..
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:54am.
...a TRUE troglodyt!
Quoting Darwin to support
Submitted by Jerry on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:55pm.
Quoting Darwin to support evolution? Isn't that like quoting Gore to support global warming?
"I'll just ignore the nonsense..."
So nice to just IGNORE things that contradict your theory. Once again, that's exactly the tactic of global warming alarmists. The science is settled and anyone or anything that goes against the "science" will be ridiculed and ignored.
Jerry
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 6:10am.
The point of quoting Darwin was not to support his theory, but to demonstrate that he was in a certain sense a Creationist himself, at least at that point in his life.
The nonsense I called nonsense is nonsense because:
a) In general terms the best thing you can say about mutations is that they transform information. Anything more would require a detailed analysis of what one can understand by the word "information" (which is btw a very disputed topic in philosophy with implications for all of science, as the latter is always based on information).
b) The billions of transitional forms are there, right in front of your nose. Every species living or extinct is or was a transitional form. The misconception on your part is to assume that there is some sort of finality, that one species is predetermined to transform via transitional lifeforms into another. That is simply not the case made by the theory of evolution. A segment of the species can preserve pretty much its characteristica, while another segment changes into a new species.
c) The statement "Once an ape, always an ape" is true, but misleading when it comes to evolution. The fixation on one representative of a species, does not say anything about how this species evolves over millenia. "Once apes, in the future who knows" would be more appropriate.
It is not true that mutations
Submitted by Francisco on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:55am.
It is not true that mutations are necessarily negative. Lactose tolerance in adults is such an example of a "useful" mutation..
I wouldn't exactly call
Submitted by Jerry on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:58pm.
I wouldn't exactly call Lactose tolerance a mutation. It is totally within the bounds of our genetic makeup to either tolerate or not tolerate lactose. It is NOT within our genetic makeup to morph into another species.
that's the issue right
Submitted by Francisco on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 3:13am.
that's the issue right there... Lactose tolerance is a mutation and mutations occur pretty much on that scale: very simple changes in the gene pool that are disproportionately negative but every once in a while are useful.. no species ever morphs into another through a few mutations, that is just the accumulation of many many useful mutations.. indeed, if two gene pools drift apart long enough they are mathematically guaranteed to end up as different species in a technical sense, as they will be no longer genetically compatible... you can debate on whether this process can create new biological "information" on a intuitive sense (although useful mutations are ,almost by definition, new information)... but speciation,by itself, is pretty uncontroversial..Jerry
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 6:24am.
I wouldn't exactly call Lactose tolerance a mutation. It is totally within the bounds of our genetic makeup to either tolerate or not tolerate lactose.
It is now(!) a characteristic of humans to either be able to process lactose or not. The most recent theory states that the trait of tolerance evolved 7500 years ago. Before that no adult was able to consume milk without causing bowel havoc. That this could happen is apparently due to mutations on the chromosom 2.
It is NOT within our genetic makeup to morph into another species.
It probably isn't. Exterior forces change the genetic makeup to the point where you have to say it's a new species.
Let try this again
Submitted by colt4548 on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:01pm.
I thought super scientist Al Gore told us "earth's ecosystem has a balance". If so, There can be no evolution as no species could "out compete" another! Just a little logic from a conservative who has forgotten more science than any journalist has ever known!
True Social Justice would be to give journalists an Exam, And fine them for every question they get wrong. We could call it a "TAX ON THE WEALTHY". If a DAMN JOURNALIST is going to consider themself an ELITE, they will have to DAMN WELL PROVE IT!!!!!!!!!!
We do have tracings of
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:18pm.
We do have tracings of transitional life forms everywhere.
Tiktaalik is a prime example.
Though I'd love to hear where you get your facts.
Knock it off with your God Tiktaalik.
Submitted by The Vet on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:38am.
We don't give a rat's short hair about your religion FREAKSHOW.
We are not converting to your stupid religion Butt Hurt Diaper Troll. Sell your religion to other trolls. We already have a plethora of monkeypeople religions.
Dead Zippers: look at my god Tiktaalik. Braaaaaackkk. worship my god Tiktaalik. Squawwwwwk. pray to my god Tiktaalik. Squawwwwwwk.
Can't anyone teach that stupid parrot something else?
The fallacy of
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:10pm.
The fallacy of Mathews opinion is that there can either be science or God but not both. Why not?
The poll includes people who
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:13pm.
The poll includes people who believed in evolution directed by God. But 52 percent of Republicans said it's all God, no evolution.
But everyones opinion is
Submitted by MidAmerica on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:19pm.
But everyones opinion is as valid as the next person because we do not know the true nature of reality and the true nature of any diety(s). Both may be truly unknowable and invisible to humans.
True. But we act as though
Submitted by yutsnark on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:25pm.
True. But we act as though we know what's real, because otherwise, there'd be nothing much to do.
I'm just so glad that time
Submitted by Free Stinker on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:28pm.
I'm just so glad that time and chance combined to create the Newsbusters webserver out of random elements.
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
time and chance
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:11am.
Really? I thought Newbusters was a gift from God.
Sometimes it's just monkeys
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:59am.
Sometimes it's just monkeys typing on keyboards.
MighyMouth---
Submitted by matthewdean on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 5:37am.
which shows that trolls can indeed morph into a higher species.
MD
Where does it say in the
Submitted by Thoreau on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:40pm.
Where does it say in the Bible that there is no evolution? I'd like the 52% to tell me, if that polling question is accurate. There is every indication that both evolution and creation are true. And both proven scientifically.
Do you believe in God as of
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:27am.
Do you believe in God as of the Holy Bible? Adam and Eve were created w/o sin and only after they disobeyed God did sin enter their lives. Now with sin in God's creation he had to have a sacrifice to appease Him. Then God sent His Son Jesus to be the sacrifice.
If man evolved by chance then he would have no sin, and God would not send His Son and we would not need redemption. So therefore Christianity would be a lie.
There is however micro evolution, just not macro evolution.
There has never been, nor
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:20pm.
There has never been, nor will there ever be scientific proof of God's existence.
You say that now, but you'll
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:04am.
You say that now, but you'll be whistling a different tune when you're DEAD!.
I didn't realize the Church
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:14pm.
I didn't realize the Church was actively pursuing a scientific proof in God - faith is their proof.
Are you from the hereafter? How do you know what death is like?
MSNBC got money from NBC and
Submitted by Van Halen on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:10pm.
MSNBC got money from NBC and GE who got money from Obama's Fed who stole the money from us and secretly loaned it out. So there is no credibility whatsoever at MSNBC.
Crissy believes in evolution...
Submitted by TRH on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:38pm.
how else will he have faith he will ever evolve from the idiot he is?
Go ahead and Defend Darwin, That's the only other choice
Submitted by upcountrywater on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:39pm.
Those defending Darwin cannot have read his Descent of Man, wherein he applies the principles of natural selection to human beings -- a thing he prudently avoided in his earlier Origin of Species. In the Descent, the eugenic and racial inferences are clearly and startlingly drawn by Darwin himself.
And there is this: In Darwin's own words:
Darwin also writes: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down (emphasis added).” According to Darwin himself, the existence of these irreducible, complex systems is a devastating blow to the thieory of evolution!
No Electron microscopes 151 years ago.
You Didn't Build That.
Apparently he would have
Submitted by Thoreau on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:44pm.
Apparently he would have puked up our modern day genetically engineered salads. His theory shot down with a fork and a nice vinegrette. But that's a bit overly dramatic. Darwin had no knowledge of humans. He studied animals on an island. And did so not at the genetic level but with pencil and paper drawings. He had a point, but it ain't the whole story. Which is why it's called a theory, not a law.
Prissy Tingles has made me a believer in sub-human hatching...
Submitted by Dave. on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:43pm.
...as that had to be one seriously slimy reptile that laid the egg he popped out of.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Sorry , I have a question
Submitted by pwb on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:45pm.
If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes. Did a whole generation just decide to remain stupid and bent over? Just asking.
pwb
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:44pm.
I know next to nothing about evolution and even I know that according to the theory, apes and humans both evolved from a common ancestor.
This is correct. Apes and
Submitted by Roscoe on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:14pm.
This is correct. Apes and Humans didn't exist as they were. There was a common ancestor that lead to a branching. Where the branch occurs, the common ancestor ceases to be. If you are a strict evolutionist, then you would most likely believe humans arose gradually and more likely to believe in polygenism, which says that humans evolved independently in different areas and there are more than one ancestor. If you are Catholic (don't know about other Christians), you believe at some point one pair of evolved ape-ancestors were given a soul or what not by God and this made these two and only these two uniquely human. From there we all came.
I think once people start
Submitted by Thoreau on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:49pm.
I think once people start comparing our genome to that of who we are said to have evolved from(apes), lots of things will become clear. Like where we didn't come from. And it will likely scare the hell out you.
Tell me again...
Submitted by The_Barrel_Guy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 8:56pm.
why we spend any time trying to figure out Tingles... Is he not the mental giant of our time?
And... I don't want to even open the door on the concept of primate evolution leading to Obama...
DRAT!! I did anyway...
Merry CHRISTmas
'..And I also cast my eyes
Submitted by Slyrr on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:06pm.
'..And I also cast my eyes round about, and beheld, on the other side of the river of water, a great and spacious building; and it stood as it were in the air, high above the earth. And it was filled with people, both old and young, both male and female; and their manner of dress was exceedingly fine; and they were in the attitude of mocking and pointing their fingers towards those who had come at and were partaking of the fruit. And after they had tasted of the fruit they were ashamed, because of those that were scoffing at them; and they fell away into forbidden paths and were lost.
...And the angel of the Lord spake unto me again, saying: Behold the world and the wisdom thereof; yea, behold the house of Israel hath gathered together to fight against the twelve apostles of the Lamb....
Whether you're LDS or not, the vision of the Tree of Life nails it. (To those who haven't read it, the fruit of the tree is the love of God....)
Hey Tingly
Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:16pm.
how ya gonna square your fever for evolution, with it's biggest supporter, Adolph Hitler....
Who ya gonna send to da showers
roflmao
Hey Tingles
Submitted by donabernathy on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:21pm.
To quote algore..."the science is settled... Life begins at conception".... how ya square that with ya thrill to kill mind set of abortion....
Oops I'm sorry Evolution is a Theory... Life Beginning at conception is a Scientific FACT.
roflmao
donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:51pm.
"Oops I'm sorry Evolution is a Theory..."
So are Relativity and Quantum Theory.
So?
Hey sport
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:28am.
maybe ya outta learn yaself da difference between a Fact and a Theory... or do ya still think the Earth is flat?
roflmao
donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:00am.
Within science, empirical observations at taken as "facts" and form the basis for the development and verification of scientific theories.
The Earth's shape can (with today's technology) be verified via direct empirical observation and so it's (approximately) ellipsoidal shape can be taken as a "fact".
By contrast, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics represent empirical models which incorporate generalized (or universal) statements about how certain entities behave. They, like most theories in science, establish these generalized statements via induction - that is, going from a finite collection of empirical observations ("facts") to generalized statements ("theory").
Since induction isn't truth preserving, any theory that uses it can't, strictly speaking, ever be proven via empirical observation.
So Relativity and QM are theories just like Evolution is - and none of them can ever be 100% proven correct.
Let me know if I missed anything there, sport.
ps - This year, I started teach an introductory physics class to the physics majors at my school where I decided to introduce some basic philosophy of science. I think I'm going to use your post (with your kind permission of course) as an example of common misunderstanding that folks outside of science have about the ideas of fact and theory.
I'll let you know how it goes.
DM
Submitted by MightyMouth on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:20am.
Make sure you explain to your class that Evolution and Creationism are both theories and therefore both should be taught in class. Unless of course you have more 'faith' in evolution than creationism. Of course you could be like most science teachers and be disingenuous(teaching evolution as fact).
I hope you don't believe
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 6:49am.
that just because something is a theory it should be taught in class. There should be a little bit more than that (the bit that is missing for Creationism).
MightyMouth
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 10:56am.
Well, it's a physics class so I don't set out to talk about Evolution or Creationism or ID. At the end of the semester, to give the kids a bit of a break from the math we had covered for most of the semester, I decided to give them an intro to the philosophy of science. That meant talking about scientific theory, empirical evidence, modeling, support of a theory and the scope of science.
Having said that, one student did ask about Evolution and Creationism. My response was basically as follows:
Both are theories to explain the origin of organic life on Earth. While Evolution is (or attempts to be) a scientific theory (based on the stuff we had talked about), Creationism isn't (and so shouldn't be taught in a science class) since it incorporates a supernatural agent which science isn't built to talk about. Having said that, that doesn't mean Creationism isn't true and Evolution certainly has its problems.
After talking about it a bit more - where I asked the students if they agreed or not and why - the student who brought up Evolution asked what I thought and I told him it didn't matter. As a joke, he asked if they could get extra credit if they could guess my views.
I point that out since I make a point of never preaching my views to my students. If a topic like this comes up, I try to discuss it in a neutral way so they don't know what my personal views are.
But back to your point about teaching Evolution and Creationism - as I've indicated above, since Creationism isn't a scientific theory it shouldn't be taught in a science class. However, I don't see why the two can't be discussed in some other class (a philosophy class, for example).
As for how other teachers address Evolution in class - I don't know. If they teach it as fact, they shouldn't. Maybe the ones who do are being disingenuous or maybe they actually think it is fact or maybe they just don't have the time or energy to go into the whole thing.
Catholic take on evolution
Submitted by Roscoe on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:47pm.
Evolution happened. It is how our bodies were formed.
God also happened. It is how our souls were formed.
Any questions? Ask a Catholic.
So, do Catholics believe that
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:28am.
So, do Catholics believe that Genesis is not literally true?
Not necessarily
Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:09am.
Interestingly, the Catholic magisterium does not establish to a certainty on this question. The Church leaves it open to believe in the literal interpretation of scripture or the evolutionary explanation.
But the Church is clear that if evolution is an explanation for the creation of man, evolution was created by God.
So how dod you account for
Submitted by Dan The Man 2 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:09am.
So how dod you account for original sin and the need for Jesus as a sacrifice and to take all of mans sins?
i answered this further down,
Submitted by Roscoe on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:58pm.
i answered this further down, but just to be specific. The Vatican stresses that a Catholic can believe in evolution, but must also believe that the human race began with only one pair of humans (Adam and Eve) and it was through those two that we got original sin. They were the first animals to which God gave a soul, and thus the first real humans. From them we all came and sin along with it.
Does this relate to the
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:22pm.
Does this relate to the teachings of Teilhard de Chardin? I remember reading, many years ago, about his thoughts on evolution.
ya, this is correct. the
Submitted by Roscoe on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:02pm.
ya, this is correct. the term is usually known as "theistic evolution" which is very different from intelligent design and creationism. Reason (and thus most scientific findings) and faith cannot be separated and must complement each other as God created both. If science tells us evolution happened, then it must be so. But faith reminds us that this world came to be through God's will alone and was created from nothing for the sole purpose of glorifying him.
The Vatican has pretty much
Submitted by Roscoe on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 5:57pm.
The Vatican has pretty much said that Genesis is more allegorical. It definitely does not ask of its followers to believe Genesis to be literal. You can still be a good practicing Catholic and believe it's more of a story or metaphor. However, parts of it one still needs to accept. That part is that Adam and Eve were true people that God instilled a soul into. Every human being on the planet came from only two people and those two people did not have human parents. Through the lens of evoution, the church is willing to accept that humans' bodies came from previous animals (paraphrasing: a pope basically said it's undeniable every living thing on the planet is linked genetically), but our souls, and thus our humanity, was given to us by God.
That's just religious
Submitted by Jerry on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:05am.
That's just religious political correctness in my opinion.
Jesus studied and quoted from the Torah (first 5 books of the Old Testament), of which Genesis is the corner stone. If it were "allegorical", He most assuredly would have set the record straight.
setting the record straight
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:25pm.
Several possibilities come to mind. Maybe he didn't know it was allegorical. Or maybe he knew, and didn't choose to talk about it. Or maybe he did talk about it, but nobody wrote it down.
Come on Yuts.. the Son of
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:34am.
Come on Yuts.. the Son of God... God in the flesh... He most assuredly knew whether Genesis was "allegorical" or not. He most assuredly would have set the record straight, just as he set the disciples straight on God's commandments (ie. it's about being pure in your heart and intentions, not just pure in your actions). He constantly quoted scripture, often chastising the Pharisees by saying "haven't ye read...". Genesis is not allegorical. It is the cornerstone of scripture.
Come on Yuts
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 5:35pm.
Good point. But he also didn't set the record straight on Noah's Ark or the parting of the Red Seas. Does this mean that the entire Old Testament should be taken literally?
Absolutely
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 8:45pm.
Absolutely
Forgive me, but how did all
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 1:33am.
Forgive me, but how did all those animals get onto one boat? And fish? Were there flying insects on the ark too? Were there two of each amoeba, even though they don't need a mate to reproduce? How did Noah gather up the bacteria without a microscope? And since he knew about bacteria, why didn't Jesus mention that? Could have saved a lot of lives.
I'm not trying to make a joke out of religion, and I'm certainly not trying to ridicule the Bible. These are genuine problems I have with a literal interpretation.
~yutsnark
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 9:57pm.
Ask your rabbi. You know, the one whom no one has ever proven wrong?
WB
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:53am.
Ah, Wrathful Brunette, you remember the illustrious Rabbi. He says, "Of course you can't get all those animals onto one boat.!" He does not take the of the Torah as a literal account of history.
Of course, the argument that "Jesus would have told us" is wasted on a Rabbi.
(By the way, I'm not saying he's always right. Just that people don't prove him wrong.)
~Fascinating
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 1:42pm.
How do you get to be a rabbi if you don't believe what you're studying/teaching?
Wrathful Rabbi
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 3:13pm.
Like many Rabbis (maybe most rabbis, these days), he believes that much of the Torah is allegorical.* Is this not true among Christian clergy?
*(In contrast to Global Warming, which is Al Gore-ical)*
http://www.jewishaz.com/issues/story.mv?070629+torah
http://www.docsandmore.com/CBS/articles/Torah%20Court%20Case.pdf
~If it were allegorical
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 5:14pm.
then it would be pretty much worthless. What kind of God would give us a bunch of fairy tales and pass them off as truth? Of what value is a lie?
If it were Allegorical
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 7:18pm.
An allegory isn't a lie. It's an illustrative story, with underlying moral, social, religious, or political significance. A synonym for allegory is "parable." You will recall that Jesus used parables.
http://www.tnellen.com/cybereng/lit_terms/allegory.html
~After I posted that
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 10:48pm.
I knew you would misunderstand my point. I know what an allegory is, doll, literature is my passion.
My point was that the stories in the Bible are related as factual historical events. If they in fact were allegories, then the Bible would be misleading and God would essentially be a liar. It's very clear that Jesus' parables were not being related as factual events. Big difference.
Literate Brunette
Submitted by yutsnark on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 5:16pm.
Sorry for misunderstanding your point. I think I've got it now.
Certainly you are in good company. Many people, including most Orthodox Jews, believe that the Torah was "given" directly to Moses, and that its every word is literally true.
On the other hand, many (including most Reform Jews) believe that the Torah, while inspired by the Almighty, was written by men and compiled from a number of other documents. These men are not deemed to be liars. But since humans are fallible, there could have been mistakes, misinterpretations, and of course, mistranslations. Certainly there is historical evidence of a great flood. Maybe some people built boats which, with God's help, allowed them to survive the flood. And then stories got passed down, and embellished, through the generations...
Anyhow, it's nice to hear that literature is your passion. It's mine as well.
Hope you and Yo Mamma have a Happy New Year.
~Wow
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:40pm.
My fourth double post, ever. I'd like to blame the influence of alcohol, but alas, I haven't a drop to bless meself with.
Fourth double?
Submitted by Rukus on Thu, 12/30/2010 - 6:34pm.
Rookie!
Darwin himself even refutes "evolution"
Submitted by c5then on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 9:55pm.
As it is presented by the evolution purists. His observations document finches that are unique to the Galapagos islands and fill ecological roles and niches not doucumented anywhere else in the world. They are however all undisputably still finches. There is no evidence or observation of any type of finch transforming into any other type of bird. The Bible says that all the birds and the fishes and the animals were formed "each according to thier kind (or type). Now if you take "kind" or "type" to mean what we currently call Genus or Family you will see that the theory of evolution can mesh rather nicely with the biblical account of creation. What we are seeing and documenting is what Drawin described as "natural selection" acting on the various organisms from their creation until present.
One of the strangest reaches that evolution requires of it's adherents is the acceptance that through multiple mass extinctions all theorized to have been caused by severe ecological calamities it was the weakest and most fragile organisms that were able to survive. The frogs and corcodilians that we are taught are so in danger becasue they are totally dependant on their fragile ecosystems were among those who survived at least 4 major mass extinction events.
We have documented fossils found in Texas that were 100 year old human and horse remains. completely fossilized. We have the trees on the slopes of Mount St. Hellens that were toppled in it's massive recent eruption that have been radio isotope dated to 12,000 years old.
The problems with "evolution" are many and varried. I think that it might actually take more "faith" to believe in evolution than it does to accept the biblical account of creation.
Madison and Jefferson and Franklin built a Republic - Roberts killed it!
I'm not surprised
Submitted by CobraMan on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:20pm.
I'm not surprised that Chrissy is, one again, mocking Republicans for their beliefs. After all, Chrissy sprang fully formed out of a donkey. The Ass that was born is nicked-named "Jack."
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Mr. Tingles theme song (to
Submitted by Jerry on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 10:25pm.
Mr. Tingles theme song (to the tune of Twinkle, Twinkle Little Star)
Tingle, tingle, little Chris,
His leg "thrill" was only p$ss.
Now we know why he so rants.
He's stewing there in pee soaked pants.
Tinkle, tinkle, little "man",
Broadcasting to your only fan.. (Hi mom!)
Which makes more sense?
Submitted by Nonanon on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:35pm.
I'll try to make this as short as I can, but it might be a bit awkward sounding.
The story of God and creation sometimes seems bizarre and difficult to wrap your head around, but contrast that to what evolutionists preach and demand we believe in. There are two ideas about the beginning that I'm aware of. Either there were chemicals or compounds just existing and then pockets of attraction or gravity started pulling the substances together to form the planets, stars, sun, moon, and the rest of the solar system or there was a large mass of stuff just existing and it exploded and formed all of those things. I'm sure there are other ideas, but those are the two most likely things that could have happened. Then out of all of those non-living things, something just became living, likely a single cell being, yet such a very complex organism, in an atmosphere conducive to life. Quite a lot of progress in one step. Then this one cell somehow has the ability to divide and grow. Somehow it acquires the ability to absorb nourishment and metabolize said nourishment and dispose of the waste products that everything produces. (There are a lot of complicated process that just came to be...) This process of growing and changing continued and before this being, or its descendants, died, mutated into something else that we are told lived in water, with the ability to breathe oxygen from the water. (Another complex process) Then apparently bored with that environment, developed lungs with the ability to breathe air and crawl, slither, or walk on land, each movement requiring quite complex systems on their own. Now I don't know when sexual reproduction started, but that would have required a fertile male and a fertile female of each species to mutate into being close enough to each other that they would have been able to mate, since the proper organs would have been acquired. Then the process of pregnancy would have started from somewhere and then after that ran its course the delivery would have taken place. Obviously somewhere along the line the knowledge of how to care for the offspring would have come into existence along with the necessary organs to provide nourishment to the offspring. Again I am not sure when plant life is suppose to have emerged, but some of these beings would have developed ability to eat and navigate such things. Then these things kept mutating and here we are today...
There are so many organs, systems, and processes that we know exist such as brains, photosysthesis, digestion, circulation, hibernation, healing, respiration, hearing, communication, etc. that are so complicated and dependant on other things. It is just impossible to see how all that exists now could have came into being as a result of random mutations. And the evidence has never proved any of this story of evolution and I think everyone knows that even though many claim to not. They claim the lack of evidence is somehow proof of evolution. How convienent. We know there has been a lot of variation within a species, but they all turn out to still be the same species, albeit maybe having a different 'flavor'. There are just too many things that would have had to go just right for evolution to have occured and good science bears this out.. So who is it that sounds foolish?
I am not particularly
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:00am.
I am not particularly religious and can be flippant on occasion, but I have internalized as a hard core rule that: One. Never. Mocks. Other. People's. Religious. Beliefs. Period. - To do so is stupid, dangerous, and wrong.
My other rule is never engage in (or even read) religious arguments on political web sites - especially when biblical passages are being quoted.
This is just standard lefty crap from a drone
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Mon, 12/20/2010 - 11:56pm.
Don't address issues, just marginalize. How tiring. This same technique for three years is getting to be a bit tedious.
Wow, Tingles, you're a genius
Submitted by WarEagle01 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:07am.
Chrissy and his leg are constantly making fools of themselves. The whole Lucy thing is priceless. He totally beclowns himself in his weak attempt to demonstrate how it's really the Republicans that are stupid. Oh, Chrissy. What would we ever do without you and your leg to keep us entertained?
Psalm 14.1
Submitted by oldeee on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:24am.
"The fool has said in his heart, there is no God."
Any questions?
A challenge to evolutionists
Submitted by koorangkoo on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:32am.
I challenge all those who believe in evolution to please perform in a science lab what you claim happens all the time by random and blind chance in nature -- the changing of one species into another. If you cannot do it with all the science and technology we possess today, it means that "blind and random evolutionary forces" in nature can supposedly accomplish in nature what you can't duplicate in a science lab. Which makes "blind and random evolutionary forces" in nature smarter and more creative than you.
Yeah, in a sense you're right
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:07am.
Yeah, in a sense you're right that nature is smarter and more creative than we are.
Evolution is not the changing of one species into another.
It happens over millions of years. Hence, it would be hard to replicate in a science lab.
"Evolution is not the
Submitted by Jerry on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 3:32am.
"Evolution is not the changing of one species into another.."
I thought "ape becomes man" was the main tenet of evolutionary theory.
"nature is smarter and more creative than we are.."
Nature can neither be "smarter" nor "creative". Nature is random. Random equals chaos. Chaos results in less complexity, not more complexity. Nothing in "nature" becomes greater than itself over time. Just the opposite is true.
Jerry
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:20am.
Random and chaotic don't mean the same thing in science.
Truly random systems are non-deterministic while chaotic systems are.
As for complexity in chaotic systems, take a look at Julia or Mandelbrot set and tell me those aren't complex.
There are definitely laws
Submitted by Jerry on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:22am.
There are definitely laws that govern creation, all of which we discover and attempt to explain through mathematics or physics (ie. the sciences).
I'm just saying that all inanimate objects are in a constant state of degradation. Even the mightiest boulder will eventually become sand. Nothing becomes greater than itself within the randomness of "nature". There is one thing that defies this concept for a brief period, and that is LIFE. Living things will grow, and self repair, until they reach the end of their life cycle and then will degrade. Life could not have been a result of the randomness of nature. Life is a gift from God and eternal Life is a gift through Christ Jesus.
Jerry
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:09am.
Well, first I would say that the laws of physics are human constructs used to describe what appear to be regular patterns in empirical reality. It might sound like nitpicking but when you take the view that there are "laws of physics" out there which we discover, it suggests (by analogy) a law maker. In other words, it implies things which may or may not be the case.
That aside, there are certainly examples of systems that organize themselves in complicated ways which aren't organic - ranging from the highly organized ways atoms come together in solids to the detailed structures of galaxies. Granted, these aren't as complex as in organic systems, but they most definitely represent systems which organize themselves (assuming that's what you mean by "greater than itself").
You assert that life could not be the result of "randomness". Well, I'm not sure how you are using the word "randomness". Isn't the behavior of all of the atoms and particles in the universe ultimately dictated by the actions of the four fundamental forces? Where's the randomness in that?
If I drop a bunch of coins on a table, the outcomes might appear random but that's just because I didn't have enough info about the initial states and all the forces on the coins as they fall and hit the table. If I knew all those things, I could predict exactly how the coins would end up. So again, where's the randomness?
Yeah, but then you just get into
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 2:18am.
The whole "who created the forces" debate, and we all know where that ends up. :)
Merry Christmas Hydro. And a happy New Year.
RESTLESS1
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:37pm.
Good point :)
Merry Christmas and happy New Year to you as well.
Changing species
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:18pm.
No, "ape becomes man" is not the main tenet, nor even a minor tenet of evolution. Every animal is different; those with traits suitable to the environment survive and reproduce. E.g., animals with longer necks can eat more leaves, those with shorter necks starve and die. Over many generations, you've got giraffes.
If nature is random, why do objects fall down, and not up or sideways?
"nor even a minor tenet of
Submitted by Jerry on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:29am.
"nor even a minor tenet of evolution..."
"Ape becomes man" has been taught in our public indoctrination centers as evolutionary fact as long as I can remember.
"animals with longer necks can eat more leaves, those with shorter necks starve and die. Over many generations, you've got giraffes"
Yes, and those short necked ancestors were still giraffes. Every species contains dominant and recessive traits. Giraffes with longer necks survived because they could reach the food supply, so the gene for longer necks survived and became the dominant trait. They were and are still, just giraffes.
You went to the wrong
Submitted by yutsnark on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:32pm.
You went to the wrong indoctrination center. There's no documented case of an ape turning into a man.
No, the short-necked animal was not a giraffe. Giraffes have long necks.
You're making my case. Of
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 12:51am.
You're making my case. Of course there's no documented case of ape turning into man, because it didn't happen. But when I went to school, it was presented as fact. I still remember the charts, a timeline of evolution with pictures of the progression of ape to primitive man and ending with modern man.
The evolutionists are constantly changing their "theory" as its fundamentals are disproven or revealed to be statistically impossible. It reminds me a lot of global warming.. I mean climate change... uh... global climate disruption..
And sorry to disagree with you, but IF a short necked creature became a long necked giraffe, that short necked creature was indeed a giraffe. Dogs living in cold climates developed thick insulating coats. But they are still dogs both before developing the coats and after.
Jerry
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 1:12am.
Well, Jerry...
It's been a long time since I've taken a biology course -- and there seem to be people with real expertise here. I hope they step in and rescue me soon.
In the meantime, I found a link that discusses the descent of man and the ape from a common ancestor: http://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/humans-des...
You won't agree with what it says, and you may be justified in taking issue with its know-it-all tone. But at least it's written by someone who knows more than I.
Regarding your canine example: If the dog descendents have a thicker coat, you still call them dogs. But what if later descendents have wings, feathers, and beaks? Do you still call them dogs?
Well, on second thought, I withdraw the question. Taxonomy is really irrelevant to the validity of evolution, right? If we called all animals "dogs," it wouldn't change anything about their traits or their genetic lineage. (But we'd have to find some other way to distinguish between the one who was supposed to do homework, and the one who allegedly ate the homework.)
I didn't think it was
Submitted by Jerry on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 2:05am.
I didn't think it was presented with a know-it-all tone, but you're right, I don't agree.
If you begin with a premise that life was not created, the story of creation seems like a fairy tale. If you begin with a premise that life was created, the theory of evolution seems like a fairy tale.
Either way, a faulty premise leads to a faulty conclusion. I'm betting (my life) on the Word of God.
Anyway, you're ok Yuts. I can tell you're a nice person. I sense that while you are leaning towards the evolution camp, you haven't enlisted yet. I would encourage you to dis-regard the premise on either side and just seek truth.
Thanks Jerry
Submitted by yutsnark on Sat, 12/25/2010 - 6:24pm.
Hope you're having a joyous Christmas.
Evolution is not the changing of one species into another.?????
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:44am.
Huh....... then what's all the talk bout Man came from Apes.....are you suggestion that man and ape are the same species and it was simply a case of genetic mutation?
roflmao
Jerry and donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:16am.
As I stated above - and correct me if I'm wrong - I'm pretty sure current evolutionary theory claims that both man and ape evolved from a common ancestor - not that man evolved from ape.
Sorry
Submitted by Rukus on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:54pm.
I respect your scientific knowledge and polite exchanges, but " man and ape evolved from a common ancestor - not that man evolved from ape." is just like it's no longer "global warming" but "climate change". Change the message over time, IMHO of course.
Rukus
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:40pm.
I get your point but, by way of analogy, would you say that you and your cousin are descendents from a common ancestor or that you are descendent from your cousin?
I don't think it's a trivial distinctions and I don't think it's a matter of changing the message over time. The idea that evolution implied humans came from apes was a mischaracterization used to make fun of Darwin and his theory and though I'm certainly no historian on the topic, I don't think people have believed the ape to man thing for a while, if they ever did.
Either way, I appreciate the kind words.
Hydro, even if they both
Submitted by Jerry on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:44am.
Hydro, even if they both came from a "common ancestor", that just places the "mutation of species problem" one generation back. Was the "common ancestor" a man, ape, or another species altogether. Either way, a species mutation had to occur.
That's like when the evolutionists could not account for the beginning of life, they just hypothesized that it was brought here from another planet. Hello... it still had to begin on that other planet somehow.
Jerry
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:15am.
If you go through my posts here, I think you will notice that I've never actually defended evolution in any detailed way. I've simply pointed out some misconceptions - either about evolution itself or science in general.
I don't use evolution in my work and I'm sure there are many here - both who agree with the theory and those that don't - who know a great deal more about the theory than I do.
Having said that, it's easy to criticize science for not having all the answers. Why not criticize Relativity or Quantum Mechanics as well - they certainly have shortcoming.
I have no quarrel with you
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:50am.
I have no quarrel with you Hydro. You've always been courteous and reasonable.
I'm not criticizing science per se. But sometimes some scientists can have an agenda that overrides their commitment to seeking truth. One has to go no further than the "science is settled" global warming crowd to confirm this critique.
The evolutionists begin with the premise that nothing was created and try to explain how everything got here. If your work is based upon a faulty premise, any conclusion you reach will be faulty. It is my humble opinion that their premise is faulty.
Jerry
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 6:44pm.
No quarrel intended from my end - just having a discussion.
Regarding the premise of no creator - well, since science can't incorporate supernatural agents into its theories, there isn't really much of a choice here. A creator capable of creating life would most certainly be such an agent.
You can view science as a type of game. It imposes certain rules on itself regarding what it can and can't talk about. A big one is the rule that science will only try to explain things via material/natural agents.
That approach might exclude science from ever coming up with an accurate theory (or any theory) for certain things in the world - and the creation of life might be one of them. But the idea is to see how far you can get taking that approach.
Trying to come up with a purely material explanation for the origin and development of the most complicated types of systems - organic systems - known to man is a tough business. I'm willing to cut them some slack for not having all the answers.
koorangkoo
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:13am.
You are asking if we can take an organism and alter it at the molecular/genetic level to change it into a completely different organism?
Well, no - not at the present. But who's to say decades or centuries from now we won't be able to?
But of course the irony is that folks like you will probably do what they can to prevent science from getting to that point, claiming that man shouldn't try to "play God".
I have no doubt that man will
Submitted by Jerry on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 12:53am.
I have no doubt that man will eventually genetically alter God's creations. It won't prove or disprove anything. Man will not have "created" life any more than a potter "creates" a color when he mixes blue clay with yellow clay.
Man has sought to "play God" since the beginning of time. Is it a smart thing to do? I certainly don't think so.
Jerry
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:21am.
I agree - it wouldn't prove or disprove anything. I wasn't sure what the other poster's point was.
As for creating life - aren't scientists able to generate organic matter form inorganic matter? I'm pretty sure I remember reading this when I was a kid. If that is the case, then I don't see why at some future date, man couldn't literally create life from inorganic matter and engineer it into whatever lifeform they want.
But again, that wouldn't prove or disprove anything regarding how life on Earth started (although I suppose it might be used to support the evolutionary view).
Hydro.. I'm pretty sure
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:19am.
Hydro.. I'm pretty sure scientists haven't been able to turn inorganic into organic, because if they had, the Darwinists would be touting it in every discussion about evolution.
To me, Genesis has all the answers that man tries to explain away.
God spoke the universe into existence. It wasn't there and then.. boom... it was there. That's a big bang if there ever was one. And that's what it would look like to a scientific mind.
God created each to it's own kind. That's a definition of species. The scientific mind reasoned that they all evolved from a single celled organism.
God created them, male and female. This is something that defies evolutionary theory. Why would a self-contained organism evolve into male and female. Not only does the male have to survive to adulthood, but so does the female. Did one organism just decide it was going to be a man, and patiently waited around until another organism decided to become a woman?
God created man in His own image. That sets him apart from all the other animals. The scientific mind reasoned that man is the peak of the evolutionary process.
God gave man dominion over all the animals. We use them for working the fields, for pleasure, for companionship, for amusement, and yes for food.
Jerry
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:02pm.
I looked it up - the experiment I was thinking of was the Miller-Urey experiment. Unless I'm totally misunderstanding the experiment, it does seem to represent an example of setting up an situation where organic material is generated from inorganic material.
That aside, I appreciate your expanding on the ideas of Genesis. And yes, that account does provide answers. My issue with it - and I mean no offense here - is that there are other, different, religious accounts for the origin of the universe and man. How do I know which provided the correct answers?
In your heart, you will know.
Submitted by Jerry on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 1:24am.
In your heart, you will know. Seek truth, and you shall find it.
Mohammed is dead. Buddha is dead. Confucius is dead. Jesus is alive.
~Hydro dahling
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:31pm.
None of the 'other religions' accounts are nearly so coherent or detailed as that found in Genesis.
Islam (explanation taken from the Koran)
Chinese account of creation
Hindu account of creation
Wrathful Brunette
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:55pm.
I appreciate the links. However, given my almost complete lack of theological knowledge, I'm not sure a hundred links to the teachings of various religions would put me in a position to judge which view is the most detailed or coherent.
But if detail and coherence were my standard, I think that would push me back toward the scientific view. Granted, I'm somewhat biased in thinking that :)
Beyond that, however, is another problem. Even if I assume a supernatural origin to all things, I still have no way of knowing whether any of the theological views out there is actually correct. From my standpoint, I don't see it as a matter of choosing the best of those available to me.
By way of a scientific analogy, a couple of hundred years ago there were two main competing theories for describing the nature of light. Some famous scientists believed in one and some famous scientists believed in the other. But it turns out neither theory was actually correct.
I know - I'm hopeless.
~You are
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:22pm.
but you're also so darn cute.
rowr
Sorry I'm late on this Hydro
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 9:05am.
And I should probably look it up to be sure, but didn't the Miller-Urey experiment still require Miller to "encourage" the creation of the organic material, thus still identifying the need for a creative stimulus?
Damn, I'll have to look it up, but I think this is the one I'm thinking of, and Miller couldn't get it to work without tweaking it somehow, and not within the existing conditions in place when life is thought to have originated.
Hey RESTLESS1
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Wed, 12/29/2010 - 2:40pm.
Well, don't all experiments involve scientists setting up a specific situation (or set of situations) to isolate some observable phenomenon? I know in physics there is a lot of "tweaking" when it comes to experimentation to get conditions just right to check for the processes being looked for.
Having said that, I get what you mean. If the Miller-Urey experiment was just them manipulating compounds on the atomic or molecular level to create organic materials then most people wouldn't take that to mean much as far as the creation of life. But of course, they didn't have that technology available to them back then to do that and it would undermine what they were trying to do anyways.
As far as I understand, the M-U experiment and others that have been done since set up "environments" with certain combinations of inorganic materials to see what happens spontaneously.
The question is, what environment to use. Ideas about what the Earth's atmosphere was like back when it's thought life started is based on theory and that theory has changed over time. For the M-U experiment, they set up an environment which was thought (at the time) to accurately mimic the Earth's at some earlier time. But I guess current views say that probably wasn't correct.
But from what I gather, other experiments using other environments have been done since then with some successfully generating organic material and some not. And as far as I know, there still isn't a universal opinion about what the Earth's environment was like back then
I don't know - I find it interesting.
Tingles heading for meltdown?
Submitted by Scottyb4292 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:59am.
I could be imagining things, but Tingles seems to be a bit more imbalanced than usual of late.
Is he about to blow a gasket?
I was asking the other night
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:04am.
I was asking the other night if, when it finally happens, will they show him being carried off the set strapped in a gurney? That would make great television.
Hope he is not talking about
Submitted by mostlymoderate on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:06am.
Hope he is not talking about Allah. Pea-brains like Matthews like to think they have it all figured out with science, the "Big Bang Theory" and evolution. However, none of them can explain what put all that into motion. What started it all. Their little brains just can't grasp it so they mock us religiously inclined.
chris matthews....ahhhh
Submitted by vcb-tn on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:38am.
chris matthews, he of eponymonous the chris matthews "show"? i have personally not watched even more than 2-3 minutes of this program without recoiling in disgust, changing the channel, and thinking: how can this a**hole truly believe anything , he, himself being such an intellectual, embrace, everything he is saying? does this guy , network, have access to the internet, wikilieaks? c.m. :" solution: single payer", i.e. what's left of the taxpaying public will "pay" for everybodies healthcare? taxpayer's are on the verge of becoming beneficiaries of this "program" themselves at the rate this grand design is going.
guuuussshhhhhdam!!!!
oh yeah??
Submitted by vcb-tn on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:40am.
and where's uberdouche now? c.m. gonna fill his "slot"?
He is a Catholic?
Submitted by Mystapitt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:08am.
It disgustes me that Matthews calls himself a Catholic. My son is applying to a Catholic HS in PA that Matthews is a graduate of. Out side the school is a huge banner/flag with his face on it. Obviously he is a large donor. While I have no problem if someone is a non beleiver, it is another thing to cloke yourself in Catholisism and speak out in such a disrepectful manner. Keep your mouth shut on these issues Chris. You are turning LaSalle into a joke for the young men and their families sending their boys there.
Most creationists at least have the honesty...
Submitted by HelenS on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:30am.
...to concede that their belief is a matter of faith. I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who is as honest.
The ONLY thing science can do is observe. The scientific method, by definition, is the process of observing and trying to explain and understand, ongoing and existing phenomena.
At least two events in the past were one-time-only events and therefore are WAY outside the reaches of even the most dedicated scientist: creation and the global flood. (go ahead, mock. get your breath back, pick yourself up off the floor and get back on your chair). These two events cannot ever be duplicated in our lifetimes so belief in them is a matter of faith.
And since no one has EVER observed a morphing of one life-form into another, it is ALL a matter of faith (and a whole lot of gullibility to swallow the tripe it comes wrapped in). So the finger pointers may feel all happy about themselves but they're just as faithful to their beliefs as creationists are to theirs.
Need I say "ours"?
Recommended reading: "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. He's not preaching creation. He's just saying that as we learn more about the fundamentals of life at the cellular level, we just can't accept evolution as an option.
I'm just sayin'
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
HelenS, "I have yet to
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:27am.
HelenS,
"I have yet to encounter an evolutionist who is as honest".
Well, now you have.
And in my experience - working with scientists on a daily basis - most scientists do understand the limitations of their theories.
Otherwise, I basically agree with your comments. Theories which describe singular events or events that are too large, complicated or cover too much time which can't be reproduced in a lab can never be proven.
But then, even theories which do talk about reproducible events can't be proven if they use inductions - and most scientific theories do.
Is it true that creationists
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:26pm.
Is it true that creationists are conceding that it's a matter of faith? I thought they were trying to say creationism is "science" -- hence, should be taught in public schools.
Their own science and logic
Submitted by scarebear83 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 4:31pm.
Their own science and logic can be used against them though. Evolution is a matter of faith yes, but at the same time how did the first organism come into being? Nothing can't create itself or as it's better said, an inanimate object can't create itself. For example, a computer, well I've had evolutionists tell me a computer is non living therefore it doesn't count... but the first organism had to come from something non living did it not? But the computer needed a creator, it just couldn't come together on it's own. Then we get into the discussion of, well, if everything needs a creator, then who created God? Let's look at that in two ways. Let's say God had a creator, well someone had to create that creator, and someone had to create that creator, and so on and so forth... eventually you will have to reach a point that there is something eternal. The other way is this, if God created time, space, and matter and they are all linked to one another then God is outside the realm of time, just because He created it does not mean He's held to it, think of gravity, He created it but is not bound to it's laws. Evolution falls apart from the very beginning but they don't want to admit it. They say that it's abiogenesis and the two have nothing to do with one another, which is just a cop out for saying "If we put origins in with evolution the whole theory falls apart." Evolution may just be on faith, but it's a faith that can be proven false. It's up to the other person whether they want to hold to that faith or to know the truth.
scarebear
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:00pm.
Well yeah, I've thought of that too. But that assumes that nothing can exist unless it was created by something else. Intuitively that sounds correct, but how do we really know? True, I look around me and see nothing coming into being by itself. But I also see nothing coming into being through divine intervention.
But if you do accept that assumption ..
Well, in your hypothetical model, we have God1 being created by God2, who was created by God3, who was created by "something eternal." But how did "something eternal" get there?
yutsnark
Submitted by scarebear83 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 6:22pm.
You said, "But I also see nothing coming into being through divine intervention." While that is true, once life is created, there is no need to re-create it. Think of it from a parental perspective, does a parent say, "Ya know what? I didn't like how our first child turned out so let's create another in hopes we can get it right." Most in their right minds wouldn't have a second child because the first was a failure (the child being a failure, not that of a miscarriage or something beyond their control).
Why stop at number 3? Keep going to 4 and 5 and 6 and 7.... but eventually you will have to get to something eternal.
scarebear
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:00pm.
Yes, nice analogy.
My problem is that we start by saying "everything has to be created by something." And then we say, "But there has to be an exception." I.e., the prime creator has to have been eternal. Hence, he (or she, or it) had no creator.
But if the prime creator can simply have "existed" forever -- then why do we have to posit a creator at all? Can't we just say that atoms, molecules, and the laws of physics are eternal?
Don't get me wrong. I do believe in God. But this line of thinking makes my head spin. This is where I usually start mumbling stuff about "beyond human comprehension."
May I also add:
Submitted by HelenS on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 8:35am.
No fossile has ever come with a birth-certificate or a recorded date of when it lived. The whole "millions of years" discussion is all a product of the evolution belief system and the only thing fossils do is lie there.
All the details are the product of someone's or some collective someones' vivid imaginations.
Lucy? Some little primate. Dinosaurs? really big. That's about all we know for sure.
Oh yeah. And they're dead.
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
May I also add
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 3:07pm.
You don't believe in carbon dating?
If you're betting your life
Submitted by Jerry on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 1:22am.
If you're betting your life on the accuracy of carbon dating, you're on thin, thin, ice my friend.
Carbon dating is based on the number of carbon-14 atoms in relation to the number of carbon-12 atoms in a sample. For example, if there is ONE carbon-14 atom to every TWO TRILLION carbon-12 atoms, the sample is assumed to be around 5,700 years old. If there is ONE carbon-14 atom to every FOUR TRILLION carbon-12 atoms, the sample is assumed to be around 11,400 years old.
They also assume that the ratio of carbon-14 and carbon-12 has been the same throughout the years.
And this is being used to state without a shadow of a doubt that fossils are MILLIONS of years old???? By their own admission, carbon dating can only be accurate up to 40,000 years.
And on top of that, the results have been wildly inconsistent from one sample to another and from one lab to another. Archeologists have been know to shop around their samples until they get a date that is consistent with what they thought it should be.
You are absolutely right
Submitted by Francisco on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 9:20pm.
You are absolutely right about carbon dating ... That's why it is rarely used in paleontology anyway (there are many other more far reaching radiometric dating methods)Not that I doubt you
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:29am.
Not that I doubt you Francisco, but I would like to know what the more reliable methods are, and what assumptions they rely upon. To my knowledge, Carbon dating has been touted as the gold standard in support of the "Old Earth" theories.
Carbon dating is the most
Submitted by Francisco on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:44am.
Carbon dating is the most well known dating method to the general public because of its application in Archeology in dating artifacts, structures, organic remains, etc. It is useless beyond a few tens of thousands of years..
Radiometric dating by itself is just a measure of the state of decay between one element and another. C14 is used in archeology because of its precision and relationship with biology but there are tens of other isotopes you can choose from (with varying characteristics, half-lifes, ranges, precisions and limitations, according to the circumstances you are trying to measure).
Uranium-Lead is one of the most refined ones, with a range of a few billion years.
Sure, they assume that the relative concentrations of these isotopes are affected only by radioactive decay (the only known transmutation process anyway, apart from nuclear reactions), that half-lifes are well known and constant and that the decay happens only in one direction. All and all , pretty uncontroversial assumptions.
If you're a "the science is
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:35am.
If you're a "the science is settled" kind of guy, I guess it is pretty uncontroversial. In my opinion, Uranium-Lead radiometric dating is based upon assumptions that are tenuous at best (as do all dating methods).
First of all, it assumes that the sample existed within a "closed system". In other words, the sample was unaffected by any outside influences or contaminations for the "billions" of years that it supposedly existed.
Secondly, it assumes to know what the pre-existing levels of both uranium and lead were in the sample. Uranium (the father component) decays into lead (the daughter component) so one would need to know what the original levels of at least one of the components were in order to correctly age the sample based upon the decay rates.
Thirdly, it relies on an unchanging decay rate. Uranium decay rates may not be stable, but variable in nature. A team of scientists from Purdue and Stanford universities has found that the decay of radioactive isotopes fluctuates in synch with the rotation of the sun's core.
Hardly settled or uncontroversial if you ask me.
If you wish to put your faith in the infallibility of scientific theory, that's certainly your right. I choose to rely on the Word of God. We can agree to disagree. I just don't understand why most on the left choose to denigrate anyone who disagrees with their world view. Whether it's creation, evolution, global warming, abortion, or Obama; we're considered to be knuckle dragging idiots, flat earthers, sexists, and racists.
What you just pointed out
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 11:52am.
about radioactive decay, something I didn't know before, is the reason why I prefer science to the word of God.
But back to the accuracy:
"The fluctuations we're seeing are fractions of a percent and are not likely to radically alter any major anthropological findings,"
http://www.purdue.edu/newsroom/research/2010/100830FischbachJenkinsDec.html
Just illustrating that they
Submitted by Jerry on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 1:18pm.
Just illustrating that they are discovering things all the time that impact and alter the "science". .
Too many assumptions, too many unknowns. I don't know much, but I do know enough to know there is a lot more that I don't know than I do know, and that goes for the scientists also.
Yeah, and if
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 2:07am.
In attempting to draw a straight line between two points a mile apart, better not be off even 5 thousanths of a degree.
Now multiply that mile by billions. In the scope of time we're talking about here, "fractions of a percent" can be quite a bit.
If the phenomenon is cyclic
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 4:32am.
like in this case, it doesn't really matter.
What do you mean, do I BELIEVE in carbon dating?
Submitted by HelenS on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 7:51pm.
Are we back to talking about faith?
Actually, the way I can best explain it is we are each given a piece of rope or a stick or whatever, each of equal length and asked to divide it up with markings in any way we see fit.
I hunch over my rope or stick or whatever with my little magic marker and make 6000 marks on it, nicely separated and clear and nifty. And I name each division a "year".
You hunch over your rope or stick or whatever with your own little magic marker sharpie thingee and make bunches and bunches and BUNCHES of little divisions. As close as you can to each other and you name each of your divisions a "year"
But in reality, each rope or stick or whatever is exactly the same. So I have 6000 years to work with and to divide time into and so on.
You have to cram 4 billion or however many years into your calculations and try to explain everything by all those little marks you divided everything into.
And all along, when your little machines that you calibrated against your rope or your stick or whatever tells you that your fossil is "millions of years old!" all it really did was measure 5000 of my marks, multiply it by all those little marks on your stick, and voila, it's millions of years old!
See how that works?
Me - "The libs/dems of today are the Quislings of former years - the cowards who would vote a fraud into office in exchange for handouts from the devil."
Thanks HelenS, and thanks to
Submitted by yutsnark on Fri, 12/24/2010 - 12:35am.
Thanks HelenS, and thanks to the others who responded. I'm learning a lot here.
Darwinism Is A THEORY!
Submitted by GeneralAl on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:20am.
Darwinism is a theory, just like the "Big Bang Theory". Whats interesting to me, as a believer in the creation is the hipocrisy illustrated by those who accept either of these two theories. If you accept evolution, than why do you hold animal life in higher esteem than human life? You cry about taking the life of an "innocent" seal or shooting a mountain lion but its okay to destroy a human embryo through abortion or stemm cell research. You accept the big bang theory that everything [ positive and negative nothing! ] collided and created the universe and all life but to think a creator, namely God, could speak it all into exixtance, how preposterous you all think!
http://www.generalpatriot.com
"Old Soldiers never die, they just fade away"!
A theory is not the same as a
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 1:30pm.
A theory is not the same as a "hypothesis." A theory is an explanation for observed phenomena. It continues to be called a theory after it has been proven true: e.g., the theory of gravity, the theory of relativity, and the theory of evolution.
The big Bang ain't the creation of the universe
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:54am.
it's nothing more than the begining of time. Big difference. God is eternal
roflmao
And space for that matter.
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:00am.
How do you define eternal, I wonder?
Timeless
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:20am.
next
roflmao
As in
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:33am.
archaic, having no beginning or end, not restricted to a partiular time or date or not affected by time?
btw: By now you should be butt-less.
Careful sport
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:49am.
if ya keep walking a str8 line on that flat Earth ya live on ya may fall off the edge.
roflmao
How would you know
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:58am.
that the earth is spheric?
Went and took a
Submitted by Boudin on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 9:40pm.
Picture
~Well unless you're blind
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:36pm.
You would eventually notice that things disappear over the horizon from the bottom, up. If the earth were flat they would simply become smaller and smaller as they receded. Simple observation made a long, long time ago. There are many other indicators, to those who use common sense and a little math.
donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:32am.
The Big Bang (as we currently understand it) represents the origin of all matter/energy, space and time.
In other words, it represents the origin of the material universe.
It says nothing about spiritual things or entities or their origin. But then, since Big Bang is a scientific theory, it couldn't even if it wanted to.
The Big Bang Theory
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:57am.
was the event which led to the formation of the universe.
That's a far cry from the orgin of all matter... what that matter just appeared out of nowhere.
roflmao
If physicists were so powerful
Submitted by troglodyt on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:04am.
that their theories could create the universe, I'd have to bow before HydrodynDM.
And now to your question without questionmark: Yes together with the where!
Jeebus
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:06am.
that's quite a Religion ya got there.
roflmao
troglodyt
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:34am.
Bow before me or I'll turn off your gravity by setting the Universal Gravitational Constant to zero!
hydrodynDM
Submitted by troglodyt on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:50am.
That wouldn't really make me bow, would it? You should rather consider to double or triple it. That would probably bring me to my knees.
donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:34am.
You really should read about a topic before you start talking about it.
And troglodyt's point above, while somewhat flippant, is accurate. The Big Bang is a theory which describes the event which just about every scientist on the plant believes accounts for the origin of all matter/energy, space and time.
Look it up just about anywhere if you don't believe me.
For someone who tried to put me down for not understanding the difference between fact and theory, you seem to display a startling lack of scientific understanding.
you need to double check ya facts sport
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:38am.
The Theory is the FORMATION of the universe.. Not the CREATION... DO you need me to splain the difference for your THEORY
roflmao
donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 11:53am.
I stand corrected.
You are correct - there is a distinction between the moment of creation and the time following that event. Current understanding doesn't explain the moment of creation.
I apologize for misunderstanding your point.
But in saying that, the moment of creation is thought to be accompanied by the formation of mass/energy, time and space - the three are very much interrelated - in a sense you can't have one without the others.
Your insistence that time is somehow separate from the other two in terms of its relation to the Big Bang threw me. But again, that was my fault.
again the Big Bang
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 12:23pm.
As a Theory, is nothing more than the beginning of time. That somehow our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" is quite a Religion.
donabernathy
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:50pm.
So if I look up Big Bang in a textbook or scientific periodical, all it will say is "beginning of time"? Nothing about High Energy Physics, Quantum Field Theory, Phase Transition Theory, Inflationary Theory, Grand Unified Theory, General Relativity or any countless other theories which are all aspects of "Big Bang"?
It is true that the idea of something coming from nothing seems to make no sense, but who's to say what the rules are when you step outside of the universe - which you most certainly have to do if talking about where the universe came from.
I mean, the existence of virtual particles (which pop into existence from no where) seemed to make no sense when they were first introduced, as did the idea that some systems evolve in a way that seems to violate cause and effect.
But if you want to call it a "Religion", OK. I take no offense to that.
~From nowhere
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:50pm.
I would posit that virtual particles "pop" into existence from a plane which we do not yet have the ability to detect.
I recall from reading a
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 10:55pm.
I recall from reading a little about Quantum Theory that there are believed to be 11 dimensions, so there's plenty of opportunity for your theory to be true.
~Only 11?
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:26pm.
Interesting. I'll have to add that to my reading list.
Like 11's not enough?
Submitted by 26CX on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:33pm.
Try this and see if it does anything for you.
~Hmmm
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:38pm.
It does many things, none of which are nice when you're tired and you've already got a headache. ROFL
I think I'll hit that one again after some sleep and coffee. And an ibuprofen or two. (yes, I know it isn't the most effective remedy, but it's the only thing a nursing mother can take. *sigh*)
Wrathful Brunette
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 11:47pm.
Within our current theories, virtual particles are basically the result of a type of fuzziness (or uncertainty) associated with certain physical quantities associated with a system - things like energy, momentum and position.
It all sort of comes out naturally from the way the math is set up in the theory.
If you could explain why nature has this fuzziness, then you could explain why there are virtual particles (as well as one of the central features of particle physics).
String Theories typically postulate more dimensions. I don't know enough about them to know why exactly or if the reason they do it is to explain this fuzziness.
I'm not disagreeing, but it's
Submitted by yutsnark on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 2:00pm.
I'm not disagreeing, but it's hard for me to conceptualize the "beginning of time." It makes me want to ask, "what happend before the beginning of time?" But of course, "before" is a meaningless concept when time does not exist.
Belief systems
Submitted by Model850 on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:23am.
Evolution/the big bang are belief systems.
Creationism is a belief system.
Neither is provable in any objective sense of the word.
Arguing their relative merits is pointless. You believe what you believe based on your own disposition, and it's nigh on to impossible to "convert" someone from one belief system to the other, using only argument.
Supernatural powers (if you believe in them; I do) can, and do, of course convert people to the spiritual side of the discussion. But you will never "argue" anyone to that side of the debate.
It probably is possible to argue someone from the spiritual side to the secular side, but that person's spiritual beliefs are not deeply rooted IMO.
But as I said at the start, both sides are belief systems and arguing them, while perhaps an interesting intellectual exercise, is relatively pointless.
Model850
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:34am.
I completely agree.
relatively pointless is
Submitted by donabernathy on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 10:39am.
Tingles intellect...so I guess the point is made.
roflmao
The theory of Evolution does not talk about Creation at all.
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 7:05pm.
1. Creationist generally belive that the timeline of years as discussed is God's time, and not necessarily in like with the how often the earth spins around this Sun. The entire voiding based off number of years is a false characterization.
2. Evolution does not address AT ALL, the creation of life, in any of its forms. Bacteria to Reptiles to Birds to insects to Mammals.
a. Evolution is based on the concept of natural selection, that a selective advantage of the animal gives it an advantage over others in the same group, and that this advantage is enough to cause more breeding of that advantage. The examples are always trivial, such as a black moth will live survive better where the trees are black, and the white moths will be eaten by birds, thus only the black moths survive to breed. Darwin talks about the length of birds beaks in order to eat critters in cracks.
b. The theory of Evolution is basically given enough time, natural section explains how all live grew up.
c. The fossil record does not support Evolution, as the interim forms are never found. Thus a new modification is made. That evolution occurs in rapid spurts, were the fossil record misses. Puntuacted Equilibrim
d. Evolution theory does not explain how internal processes work. Such as how did sperm gain the ablity to swim and towards a direction. Sure you can say that a swimming sperm has a higher chance of getting there, but before that, it was a simple deposit, how did this ablity of propulsion occur? Radomly? Self contained ablity to move, and the sperm is not a lifeform, but just a process.
MOST IMPORTANTLY
Evolution makes no assesment of how life started, no comment on how it was created. The speculated it was a strange brew in water, but that is laughable on a scientific assesment. Life does not come from non-life, is the accepted scientific tenant.
Evolution has no explaination of the origin of life. It only contimplates how advanced life would have come from lower life.
Think of your dog, sure you can mate them to be fluffy or with long ears, or larger or smaller, but you always have the dog, the interal organs all are the same, they all have swimming sperm.
Saying that Evolution is a more significant theory than intelligent design BASED on Science is false. Evolution does not explain the origins of life, much less how insects and plants began to be.
It is ignorant to think that the Theories of Evolution, in any way comprehend or explain the orign of life.
And then there was light! As they say.
Physics will tell you that light did not exist until after the big bang.
Chris Matthews thinks the Theory Evolution explains the Big Bang too. What a dewb
Don't you mean...
Submitted by blablablather on Tue, 12/21/2010 - 9:58pm.
ONLY 37 percent with a college degree and ONLYl 22 percent with a postgraduate degreeLeaving no doubt
Submitted by telecaster on Wed, 12/22/2010 - 11:18am.
Chris Matthews opens his mouth about something he obviuosly knows little about and once again leaves no doubt as to the depth of his bias and ignorance. But, he's keeping us informed now isn't he?
sorry your incorrect
Submitted by mgindi26 on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 4:41pm.
Sorry, man has never created organic matter from inorganic matter. That would be the creation of life. That has never happened. One other thing is reproduction of any type even in single cell organism is a very complex process since as the scientist say evolution takes place over millions of years how could this very complicated process have happened the original life form would have died the reproductive process never evolved because without reproduction you can't have evolution and you would need to evolve reproduction so all life would die before it could evoilve because it never developed the ability to reproduce no reproductio no life evolving. Basically showing evolution as an impossible way to explain life.mgindi26
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 12/23/2010 - 7:21pm.
I assume you are addressing me since I brought this up in another post here.
Look up the Miller-Urey experiment (or any of the other related experiments done since) and please let me know if I'm misunderstanding the basic idea behind the experiment - that you can set up conditions where inorganic matter turns into organic matter.
Regarding the rest of your post - so in your view, since scientists who work on evolution - which is a work in progress, as is all of science - don't have all the answers (yet), their approach will never "explain life".
OK.
As I mentioned to Jerry above, given that these folks are trying to come up a purely material theory for the origin and development of the most complicated systems known to man, I'm willing to give them some slack - and time.
Notice how even the original experiment is replicated
Submitted by tombaker on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 3:39pm.
This original experiment has never been done again, notice how the new conclusions of 22 aminio acids is testing the original outcome, instead of doing another test. When the most correct paramaters are entered, the test creates nothing.
Contaminants of many types could explain the first results, and it is highly ireggular to not do such a simple test again.
Lastly having amino acids themselves is not that incredible, creating them in a double helix with insructions is in no way explained. Unless you use the infinite monkeys and infinate time theory that will create the complete works of Shakespear by random chance model....which is the extrapolation of natural selection to become evoluion.
Again there is no theory of the origin of life with any scientific data, the scientific method has failed to provide any insight. Refute that.
---------------------------------------------
The Miller and Urey experiment[1] (or Urey–Miller experiment)[2] was an experiment that simulated hypothetical conditions thought at the time to be present on the early Earth, and tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life, it was conducted in 1952[3] and published in 1953 by Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago.[4][5][6]
In 2008,[7] a re-analysis of Miller's archived solutions from the original experiments showed that 22 amino acids rather than 5 were actually created in one of the apparatus used.[8] However, as noted, the atmospheric model used by Miller-Urey never matched the atmosphere of early earth at any known point; at the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientists thought Earth's atmosphere was composed of methane, ammonia, hydrogen, and water vapor.[9] However, in current times, geochemists have concluded that hydrogen, being a light element, would have most likely escaped earth's atmosphere.[10] Consequently, the model of gases contained within an early earth would have been carbon dioxide, nitrogen, and water vapor.[9] When the Stanley Miller tested the later model, no amino acids were produced at all, thus nullifying the experiment
tombaker
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Tue, 12/28/2010 - 9:51pm.
If you go back to my posts here you will see that all I claimed was that man could set up situations which led to the spontaneous creation of organic material from inorganic material.
And that was achieved in the original Miller-Urey experiment as well as other similar experiments since then - just take a look at the wikipedia article you quoted.
I never claimed that man could currently create self-sustained/self-replicating organic systems under conditions we currently think matched those at some earlier stage in Earth's evolution. I completely acknowledge that it is still an area of study that needs a lot of work.
So there is nothing for me to refute.
But I will make a couple of comments.
You claim there is no theory for the origin of life. OK, you are correct. There actually appear to be a bunch of competing theories about it. But so what? That's actually a pretty typical situation in an area of scientific research which is in its early stages of development.
So I suppose your criticism is that since after only a hundred or so years of work science hasn't come up with a complete theory for the origin and evolution of the most complex systems known to man, it never will?
It's taken over three hundred years for us to get to our current understanding of gravity and it still isn't 100% complete. How realistic is it to expect that scientists should have the whole origin-of-life thing shored up after about a hundred?