So, what have we here: creation or evolution?

[Newscaster]

This is according to an article in Reuters News Service.....

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Small, rocky planets that could resemble the Earth or Mars may be forming around a star in the Pleiades star cluster, astronomers reported on Wednesday.

One of the stars in the cluster, also known as the Seven Sisters, is surrounded by an extraordinary number of hot dust particles that could be the "building blocks of planets" said Inseok Song, a staff scientist at NASA's Spitzer Science Center at the California Institute of Technology.

"This is the first clear evidence for planet formation in the Pleiades, and the results we are presenting may well be the first observational evidence that terrestrial planets like those in our solar system are quite common," said Joseph Rhee of the University of California Los Angeles, who led the study.

There is "hundreds of thousands of times as much dust as around our sun," said Benjamin Zuckerman, a UCLA professor of physics and astronomy. "The dust must be the debris from a monster collision, a cosmic catastrophe."

The team used two telescopes to spot the dust, and report their findings in Astrophysical Journal.

So, what do you think?

[ViolaLee]

LOL! The question is, is the intelligent designer the same god or a different god that created us in our present form, like magic?

[moses2792796]

One could say that eventually the evidence for evolution will simply be too great for creationists to deny, but there are still a small number of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

[Truth_and_Power]

One could say that eventually the evidence for evolution will simply be too great for creationists to deny, but there are still a small number of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old.


No I think its clear that the power of rationalization outweighs the power of science. They will never HAVE to believe.

[Buck Laser]

One could say that eventually the evidence for evolution will simply be too great for creationists to deny, but there are still a small number of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old.

NEVER underestimate the power of people to believe impossible things!

[Newscaster]

Well, what about this....according to creationists, God was able to do all that stuff in just six days. This new stuff has been underway for a rather long time now and it doesnt not involve that "poof, there it is" stuff. If it was the intelligent designer at work here, would those newly born planets just suddenly leap into view? Poof !
I think for most creationists, a good idea would be not to say anything just yet. The process is not over and we dont know when it will be complete which leads to the question.....how many of us will live long enough to see that finished product?

[jafar00]

Just more proof that the Universe is obeying God's instructions to move in their own orbits, and for clouds of dust and gas to congeal and form planets.


Well, what about this....according to creationists, God was able to do all that stuff in just six days. This new stuff has been underway for a rather long time now and it doesnt not involve that "poof, there it is" stuff. If it was the intelligent designer at work here, would those newly born planets just suddenly leap into view? Poof !
I think for most creationists, a good idea would be not to say anything just yet. The process is not over and we dont know when it will be complete which leads to the question.....how many of us will live long enough to see that finished product?


I don't know about the Bible, but the Qur'aan doesn't mention 6 days as such, but mentions periods of indeterminate time when read in the original Arabic. When you have the Bible (Genesis??) say the Universe was created in 6 days, is it really written as DAYS in the original language? Or is days just in the accepted translation into English?

[Newscaster]

First of all, the BIBLE is WRONG to use the term Day. It should be, steo 1, step 2, etc etc. The word DAY is used because that was a word, way back then. There was no word as step one, stage one, so they used the only word they had but the creationists say thats correct without any study.

[tony mitra]

Question : So, what have we here: creation or evolution?

Answer : What we have here, is a forum debate on our belief in someone's interpretation a couple of thousand years ago on how things came to being, against what we have unearthed over the past few millennia of study.

A few thousand years into the future, if man is still around, for all I know, folks will still be arguing about it.

Cheers and have a great day. Unfortunately, it is raining cats and dogs in Vancouver right now. Not a good time to walk out for a bite at lunch time across the street. So, a Sushi packet at work is the solution. Perhaps this too was God's wish, that I should have a Sushi today.

:)

[underdawg]

Well the definition of evolution means that things changed over time. It seems like that is exactly what is happening. I do not believe in magic, unless you think that the very nature of the universe is sorta magical in its own way, then I might have to agree.

[jafar00]

First of all, the BIBLE is WRONG to use the term Day. It should be, steo 1, step 2, etc etc. The word DAY is used because that was a word, way back then. There was no word as step one, stage one, so they used the only word they had but the creationists say thats correct without any study.


This is why I asked if in the original language, it says "days" or something else. Now that we worked that one out, you need to ask, "How long is a "day" in cosmic terms?"

[Newscaster]

The original language was Greek. Ask what words were in use 17 hundred years ago when the bible was being put together or about 19 hundred years when the writing was being done.

[Tsky]

First of all, the BIBLE is WRONG to use the term Day. It should be, steo 1, step 2, etc etc. The word DAY is used because that was a word, way back then. There was no word as step one, stage one, so they used the only word they had but the creationists say thats correct without any study.


This is why I asked if in the original language, it says "days" or something else. Now that we worked that one out, you need to ask, "How long is a "day" in cosmic terms?"


It is clear that the universe has been here a long time because God himself has been here 'from time indefinite.' The creation account does not relay the beginning of the universe but the beginning of the heavens and the Earth which scientist agree is much younger than the universe. It is a fact that both science and the Bible agree; the universe/heaven/Earth had a beginning. On another note the Bible writers, being the wonderfully brilliant conspirators that they were, knew people would question God's view of time. So they said this:

1 O God, you yourself have proved to be a real dwelling for us
During generation after generation.

2 Before the mountains themselves were born,
Or you proceeded to bring forth as with labor pains the earth and the productive land,
Even from time indefinite to time indefinite you are God.

3 You make mortal man go back to crushed matter,
And you say: “GO back, YOU sons of men.”

4 For a thousand years are in your eyes but as yesterday when it is past, And as a watch during the night.
Ps. 90:1-4

The early Church, who I believe to be anything but Christian, was wrong to involve itself in a scientific debate b/c the Bible is not a science book although when it touches on issues of science it is accurate. To say that God created the Earth in 6 literal days was an easy assertion to make but when considering the Bible says 1000 years are as 1 day to God it is clear that his view of time is not constrained to a 24 hours period.

I watched a show on NOVA last week about a fight between a school board and teachers over the right to teach Intelligent Design as an alternative to evolution. I believe matters of faith should be taught at home or at a religious institution and not at school. With that being said, I was taken aback by the lenghts the evolutionists would go to prove a point no matter how unreasonable. For example a creation scientist pointed out design in nature and theorized that design requires a designer. He used the example of some type of bacteria that operates by a sophicated motor system. Without all of its parts the bacteria would be useless. The evolutionists countered with an example of a similar bacteria that doesn’t have the sophisticated parts and still has a useful purpose. To illustrate they showed a mousetrap which contains five pieces. By taking two or three of the pieces away you can still use the apparatus as a tie clip. My thoughts: In the case of the bacteria you have two different bacteria that are useful for two different functions. The same is true for the mousetrap and the tie clip. In nature you’ll find millions of mousetraps and millions of tie clips but never will they be used for the same purpose because they are DIFFERENT. At no time can the tie clip turn into a mouse trap without a DESIGNER. The bottom line is that just because scientists can figure out how something works does not mean that they can explain how it came to be. If a scientist cannot reproduce a tie clip turning into a mouse trap without the aid of human hands and do the same with cells turning into human beings, they will never be able to prove evolution. They can come up with sophisticated theories to explain it but they can never prove it. That is why evolution, even after many scientific discoveries, is still a theory.

[Newscaster]

The only ones who insist on calling evolution a thory, are those who still dont understand that so-called theory. If you took the time to research what is being achieved by researchers in laboratries ound the work, you wpuld see that the idea of it beiong just a theory is rapidly fading away. They learn more and more about it every day and theory is becoming fact.

[Tsky]

The only ones who insist on calling evolution a thory, are those who still dont understand that so-called theory. If you took the time to research what is being achieved by researchers in laboratries ound the work, you wpuld see that the idea of it beiong just a theory is rapidly fading away. They learn more and more about it every day and theory is becoming fact.


The scientists themselves still call evolution a theory. To suggest otherwise without being able to duplicate the process is a fallicy but that doesn't stop them from continuing with the neverending theories about how life began. If you claim that creationists cannot prove creation so they must be wrong the same applies to evolutionists. Again, using your GOD GIVEN BRAIN to figure out how things work does not in any way prove that the those things came about by chance. What a huge leap of faith scientists want you to take. Don't you have a problem with faith?

[Alonzo]

The scientists themselves still call evolution a theory. To suggest otherwise without being able to duplicate the process is a fallicy but that doesn't stop them from continuing with the neverending theories about how life began. If you claim that creationists cannot prove creation so they must be wrong the same applies to evolutionists.

I think people need to understand what a theory is:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Some famous theories:

Plate Tectonics
Gravity
Atomic Theory (why aren't people protesting chemistry class, claiming that it's not atoms that are the building blocks of life, but that it's Jesus pieces instead?)
Theory of Relativity

[Tsky]

The scientists themselves still call evolution a theory. To suggest otherwise without being able to duplicate the process is a fallicy but that doesn't stop them from continuing with the neverending theories about how life began. If you claim that creationists cannot prove creation so they must be wrong the same applies to evolutionists.

I think people need to understand what a theory is:

In science, a theory is a mathematical or logical explanation, or a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory

Some famous theories:

Plate Tectonics
Gravity
Atomic Theory (why aren't people protesting chemistry class, claiming that it's not atoms that are the building blocks of life, but that it's Jesus pieces instead?)
Theory of Relativity


Sadly scientists didn't create those things either. Yet another example of existing phenomena that man has tried to take credit for.

Some of the theories you mention (Gravity, Atomic Theory, Theory of Relativity) are examples of physical laws with natural constants that are precisely and ideally suited to support a planet like ours and all the life on it. More faith inspiring coincidences, no?

[Alonzo]

Sadly scientists didn't create those things either.

So you will denounce gravity, plate tectonics and atomic theory as "just theories"?

If scientist are able to explain away creation without a shadow of a doubt

They have? It seems like scientists say "there's no evidence for creationism" and move on.

they should also be able to recreate evolution.

So they should be able to recreate billions of years? There is plenty of evidence for evolution, but not for creationism.

[Tsky]

Sadly scientists didn't create those things either.

So you will denounce gravity, plate tectonics and atomic theory as "just theories"?

If scientist are able to explain away creation without a shadow of a doubt

They have? It seems like scientists say "there's no evidence for creationism" and move on.

Yes, that sounds highly scientific. :question:

they should also be able to recreate evolution.

So they should be able to recreate billions of years? There is plenty of evidence for evolution, but not for creationism.


Evidence for evolution? Like the evidence the fossil record was supposed to contain and yet there are gaps, no gulfs that will likely never be filled? Have you ever asked yourself why scientists claim evolution takes billions and billions of years? How on earth can they accurately theorize on a process that they HAVE NEVER SEEN WITH THEIR OWN EYES and accurately state how long it took that process to materialize? Could it be b/c people like me would ask for proof? Thank goodness they have people like you who reject religious faith and accept scientific faith. Nope, there is no hypocrisy there.

Sorry, this was for AlonzoMourning.

Some of the theories you mention (Gravity, Atomic Theory, Theory of Relativity) are examples of physical laws with natural constants that are precisely and ideally suited to support a planet like ours and all the life on it. More faith inspiring coincidences, no?

[Alonzo]

A planet like ours can't exist if it relies on things that don't exist. If a planet required something called Uzumbunti to sustain life then it would, since none of that exists. If it required that substance to form then it wouldn't. You don't take the only available material and say "See, that material is ideally suited to us!". There's simply no other way for us to develop other than to use that. If anything, we and our planet are suited to what was already out there.

How on earth can they accurately theorize on a process that they HAVE NEVER SEEN WITH THEIR OWN EYES

Evolution is observable in bacteria, viruses, flies, and to a lesser extent (not to the point of speciation) in dogs, cats, rats etc.

Like the evidence the fossil record was supposed to contain and yet there are gaps, no gulfs that will likely never be filled?

The fossil record is filled with evidence. You don't find humans in rock layers filled with Permian animals. You don't find similarly complex animals at that time either. You don't see mammals populating areas filled with animals from the Cambrian seas, and you don't find complex mammals populating the Triassic period.

But of course there are gaps, fossilization is a relatively rare process and, for many animals such as squid or octopus like animals, fossilization is nothing short of a miracle.

[Tsky]

A planet like ours can't exist if it relies on things that don't exist. If a planet required something called Uzumbunti to sustain life then it would, since none of that exists. If it required that substance to form then it wouldn't. You don't take the only available material and say "See, that material is ideally suited to us!". There's simply no other way for us to develop other than to use that. If anything, we and our planet are suited to what was already out there.

How on earth can they accurately theorize on a process that they HAVE NEVER SEEN WITH THEIR OWN EYES

Evolution is observable in bacteria, viruses, flies, and to a lesser extent (not to the point of speciation) in dogs, cats, rats etc.

Like the evidence the fossil record was supposed to contain and yet there are gaps, no gulfs that will likely never be filled?

The fossil record is filled with evidence. You don't find humans in rock layers filled with Permian animals. You don't find similarly complex animals at that time either. You don't see mammals populating areas filled with animals from the Cambrian seas, and you don't find complex mammals populating the Triassic period.

But of course there are gaps, fossilization is a relatively rare process and, for many animals such as squid or octopus like animals, fossilization is nothing short of a miracle.


Alonzo,

In regards to the universe, you acknowledge that laws exist but you have no explanation for who set the laws? Laws usually require a lawmaker and to avoid having to acknowledge such you basically state that if we didn't need the laws they wouldn't be there and if we did need them they would be there. That's a great way to side step the very obvious fact that it took the minds of Newton and Einstein to interpret such laws but instead of trying to find out the reason there are such laws that just HAPPEN to work out perfectly for Earth's inhabitants we'll just pay homage to the persons who interpreted the laws with no thought to how chance created such laws in the first place. And you can ignore the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for those laws to have developed by chance. Scientific methods have been ignored to develop these conclusions. Scientific methods are a fallicy. How in the world can you take PRE-EXISTING DATA and make hypothesis about not only how the data works but how the data came to be without replicating the process????? How?? Why do you believe this stuff that takes a great leap of faith to accept since you cannot, have not and will not ever in your lifetime be able to see tangible proof that the scientist's hypothesis are true? And by the way, a mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. When the fruit fly becomes a grasshopper we'll talk. Scientific experiments are full of mutants and mutants die and never attain the quality of life of a 'real species.' How c[/b]an that be when life is a result of mutations? Since when do mutants produce anything other than mutants that die quickly? Open your eyes people. It should not take a billion years for a fruit fly to become a grasshopper. It only takes a billion years because scientists know good and darned well that they can never recreate their hypothesis about how life started spontaneously and yet they are successful in getting supposed intelligent people to believe these theories.

I do not reduce the exist of the heavens to mere chance, I do not reduce the marvel and miracle of the human brain to mere chance and I do not reduce the physical laws of the universe to mere chance. I believe they were purposeful, brilliant miracles by a purposeful brilliant, Creator. That is not going against common sense Alonzo because everything we know of from the house we live in to the computers we type on, were created.

[Red Dragon]

A planet like ours can't exist if it relies on things that don't exist. If a planet required something called Uzumbunti to sustain life then it would, since none of that exists. If it required that substance to form then it wouldn't. You don't take the only available material and say "See, that material is ideally suited to us!". There's simply no other way for us to develop other than to use that. If anything, we and our planet are suited to what was already out there.

How on earth can they accurately theorize on a process that they HAVE NEVER SEEN WITH THEIR OWN EYES

Evolution is observable in bacteria, viruses, flies, and to a lesser extent (not to the point of speciation) in dogs, cats, rats etc.

Like the evidence the fossil record was supposed to contain and yet there are gaps, no gulfs that will likely never be filled?

The fossil record is filled with evidence. You don't find humans in rock layers filled with Permian animals. You don't find similarly complex animals at that time either. You don't see mammals populating areas filled with animals from the Cambrian seas, and you don't find complex mammals populating the Triassic period.

But of course there are gaps, fossilization is a relatively rare process and, for many animals such as squid or octopus like animals, fossilization is nothing short of a miracle.


Alonzo,

In regards to the universe, you acknowledge that laws exist but you have no explanation for who set the laws? Laws usually require a lawmaker and to avoid having to acknowledge such you basically state that if we didn't need the laws they wouldn't be there and if we did need them they would be there. Design does not require an anthropomorphized designer. Designs appear in clouds, for example, with no more of a designer than uneven heating, evaporation, and other natural causes. Also according to the definition of design, we must determine something about the design process in order to infer design. We do this by observing the design in process or by comparing with the results of known designs. The only example of known intelligent design we have is human design. The Universe does not look man-made.


That's a great way to side step the very obvious fact that it took the minds of Newton and Einstein to interpret such laws but instead of trying to find out the reason there are such laws that just HAPPEN to work out perfectly for Earth's inhabitants we'll just pay homage to the persons who interpreted the laws with no thought to how chance created such laws in the first place. And you can ignore the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for those laws to have developed by chance. You know I have a scar shaped very mcuh like that of Japan, does this mean that it was divinly inspired, according to your argument it does. You are making a claim from incredulity, which creates a god of the gaps. Gods were responsible for lightning until we determined natural causes for lightning, for infectious diseases until we found bacteria and viruses, for mental illness until we found biochemical causes for them. I'm preety sure that the people who beleived these elements of the universe to be impossible to form from chance and thus were divenly inspired. Gods are confined only to those parts of the universe we do not know about, and that keeps shrinking.
Scientific methods have been ignored to develop these conclusions. This claim is nothing more than an excuse that you are using to try to explain away your own failure to make your case. When someone proposes a new scientific theory, it is that person's responsibility to make a case for it. Scientific theories have, in the past, achieved wide acceptance despite strong cultural and scientific resistance. (Evolution itself is an example.) To all appearances, you have blinded yourself to seeing flaws in your theories. Your religious motivation is obvious. Just as important, you do not follow the usual scientific procedure of testing their ideas.

A scientific theory is tested by subjecting it to a very real chance of falsification. Scientists make specific predictions based on the theory, look to see if the predictions pan out, and consider the theory false if the results cannot fit what was expected. Creation theorists, unlike evolutionary scientists, do not put their ideas to such risks. Apparently, they do not want their ideas at risk.


To all appearances, design theorists have blinded themselves to seeing flaws in their theories. Their religious motivation is obvious. Just as important, they do not follow the usual scientific procedure of testing their ideas.


Scientific methods are a fallicy. How in the world can you take PRE-EXISTING DATA and make hypothesis about not only how the data works but how the data came to be without replicating the process????? How?? Why do you believe this stuff that takes a great leap of faith to accept since you cannot, have not and will not ever in your lifetime be able to see tangible proof that the scientist's hypothesis are true? Why do you beleive in gravity? And now for somethibng completly different, all observation requires interpretation. Even something as seemingly simple as seeing an object in front of you requires a great deal of interpretation to determine what it is, what properties it exhibits, how far away it is, and so forth (Sacks 1995). To dismiss absolutely everything we know because it is interpretation would be ludicrous.
Also The theory of evolution is based on evidence that has been observed. There is a great amount of which I will present now. All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. We see this frequently. For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional.
Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.

And by the way, a mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. When the fruit fly becomes a grasshopper we'll talk. Biological classification is hierarchical; when a new species evolves, it branches at the very lowermost level, and it remains part of all groups it is already in. Anything that evolves from a fruit fly, no matter how much it diverges, would still be classified as a fruit fly, a dipteran, an insect, an arthropod, an animal, and so forth. There are about 3,000 described species of fruit flies (family Drosophilidae; Wheeler 1987). "Still fruit flies" covers a wide range


Scientific experiments are full of mutants and mutants die and never attain the quality of life of a 'real species.' Most mutations are neutral. Whether a mutation is beneficial or not depends on environment. A mutation that helps the organism in one circumstance could harm it in another. When the environment changes, variations that once were counteradaptive suddenly become favored. Since environments are constantly changing, variation helps populations survive, even if some of those variations do not do as well as others. When beneficial mutations occur in a changed environment, they generally sweep through the population rapidly (Elena et al. 1996). Mutation is the only natural process that adds variation to populations. Selection and genetic drift remove variation. If mutations did not create new variation, there would now be little or no variation to select from. In particular, reducing populations to a single pair of individuals, as Noah's Flood requires, would have removed very nearly all variation from the world's wildlife in one stroke.

How c[/b]an that be when life is a result of mutations? Since when do mutants produce anything other than mutants that die quickly?High mutation rates are advantageous in some environments. Hypermutable strains of Pseudomonas aeruginosa are found more commonly in the lungs of cystic fibrosis patients, where antibiotics and other stresses increase selection pressure and variability, than in patients without cystic fibrosis (Oliver et al. 2000).

Open your eyes people. Why I mean the computers will eventually fail. The data will be lost. The species that made it will go extinct. Their planet will become barren. The sun will die out. All suns will die out. And eventually the universe will be eaten by giant evil space gods. Of which their goal is to bring an end to their annoying creation boasting independence around them, and find peace by becoming the living center of a swirling, infinite torrent of nothingness at the end of all things. So what's the point? It should not take a billion years for a fruit fly to become a grasshopper. Your right it takes billions of generations, not years. It only takes a billion years because scientists know good and darned well that they can never recreate their hypothesis about how life started spontaneously and yet they are successful in getting supposed intelligent people to believe these theories. Science requires that observations can be replicated. The observations on which evolution is based, including comparative anatomy, genetics, and fossils, are replicable. In many cases, you can repeat the observations yourself. Repeatable experiments, including experiments about mutations and natural selection in the laboratory and in the field, also support evolution. Also this is absurd you claim that evolution has been falsified yet at the same time claim it is not falsifiable.

I do not reduce the exist of the heavens to mere chance, I do not reduce the marvel and miracle of the human brain to mere chance and I do not reduce the physical laws of the universe to mere chance. I believe they were purposeful, brilliant miracles by a purposeful brilliant, Creator. So a divine force created the universe just for our amusment, wow and people think Max Striner was conceited. That is not going against common sense Alonzo because everything we know of from the house we live in to the computers we type on, were created.
Humans created the universe?

[Alonzo]

In regards to the universe, you acknowledge that laws exist but you have no explanation for who set the laws? Laws usually require a lawmaker and to avoid having to acknowledge such you basically state that if we didn't need the laws they wouldn't be there and if we did need them they would be there.

Everything typically comes from something, but originally it comes from neither. Either the universe always was, or was created from nothing, is simply a secular version of God always was, or was created from nothing.

But neither is dealt with in evolution. Life appeared, then it evolved.

Science attempts to understand how things first appeared, but it's much murkier and it's not in the theory of evolution. And the beginning, be it God or physical matter, still came from nothing or was always there. Same unknown origin, just a different thing was first.

That's a great way to side step the very obvious fact that it took the minds of Newton and Einstein to interpret such laws but instead of trying to find out the reason there are such laws that just HAPPEN to work out perfectly for Earth's inhabitants we'll just pay homage to the persons who interpreted the laws with no thought to how chance created such laws in the first place.

It didn't work out perfectly for the earths inhabitants per se. The conditions were right for something like the inhabitants on earth to arise, if the conditions were different something else would have arisen or nothing at all.

There are only certain things that can happen during certain conditions. To say it was magically created for us very different from saying things proceeded in a way where our development was possible. It sounds similar, but it's actually very different.

And you can ignore the fact that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for those laws to have developed by chance.

An atom is always an atom. If a certain structure of atoms behaves a certain way and it encounters other atoms that influence it it will behave in ways that it can. To say that for it to possess a certain type of behavior in and of itself, or for two types of atoms to behave a certain way when they meet simply because that's what they do, is much more scientific than to say "We don't know why it does this, so that means there's a God doing it". Lack of evidence is not evidence for anything other than the answer of "there's no evidence to support that".

? And by the way, a mutant fruit fly is still a fruit fly. When the fruit fly becomes a grasshopper we'll talk.

A fruit fly that, over multiple generations, can no longer mate with the original species but can mate with other fruit flies that underwent the same genetic changes, is a different species of fruit fly.

Scientific experiments are full of mutants and mutants die and never attain the quality of life of a 'real species.'

Long term? No, because it's extremely irresponsible to release a man made species into the wild, the killer bee is a perfect example of that. But as to having the same or longer life expectancies and being able to mate and reproduce? They can do that.

How c[/b]an that be when life is a result of mutations? Since when do mutants produce anything other than mutants that die quickly?

Well, there's the whole wolf into Great Dane and Chihuahua thing, plus the fruit fly and similar insects I already mentioned.

Open your eyes people. It should not take a billion years for a fruit fly to become a grasshopper. It only takes a billion years because scientists know good and darned well that they can never recreate their hypothesis about how life started spontaneously

When the fossil record shows gradual development over millions of years then you have no real argument scientifically.

Besides, 500 million years ago you were a primitive fish. It takes less than a billion years to go from one species to another, even when it's a difference as large as a fruit fly and a grasshopper.

yet they are successful in getting supposed intelligent people to believe these theories.

As opposed to the much more intelligent "poof" theory where all matter appeared from nothing and everything is created yet God was always there.

I do not reduce the exist of the heavens to mere chance, I do not reduce the marvel and miracle of the human brain to mere chance and I do not reduce the physical laws of the universe to mere chance. I believe they were purposeful, brilliant miracles by a purposeful brilliant, Creator.

[quote]That is not going against common sense Alonzo because everything we know of from the house we live in to the computers we type on, were created.

Was the seed you used to grow your marigold plants created, or did it develop from a pre-existing natural thing? The mama marigold didn't just go "seed appear" and it appeared.

[JohnM81]

Just more proof that the Universe is obeying God's instructions to move in their own orbits, and for clouds of dust and gas to congeal and form planets.


Well, what about this....according to creationists, God was able to do all that stuff in just six days. This new stuff has been underway for a rather long time now and it doesnt not involve that "poof, there it is" stuff. If it was the intelligent designer at work here, would those newly born planets just suddenly leap into view? Poof !
I think for most creationists, a good idea would be not to say anything just yet. The process is not over and we dont know when it will be complete which leads to the question.....how many of us will live long enough to see that finished product?


I don't know about the Bible, but the Qur'aan doesn't mention 6 days as such, but mentions periods of indeterminate time when read in the original Arabic. When you have the Bible (Genesis??) say the Universe was created in 6 days, is it really written as DAYS in the original language? Or is days just in the accepted translation into English?




The Hebrew word used is "yowm" (transliteration of course) which means the following:

1) day, time, year
a) day (as opposed to night)
b) day (24 hour period)

2) as a division of time
a) a working day, a day's journey
c) days, lifetime (pl.)
d) time, period (general)
e) year


So the issue is that it is unclear exactly what is meant. To add to the uncertainty, we have this word used both ways in scripture.

Used as a Era of time:
Gen 2:4 These [are] the generations of the heavens and of the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens,

Used as a singular day as us humans understand it:
Exd 6:28 And it came to pass on the day [when] the LORD spake unto Moses in the land of Egypt,

Both of these examples are using the same hebrew word. Thats why amongst believers there is uncertainty if the world was created in seven days as man understands them or if it was created in seven ages/periods of time.

[moses2792796]

One thing that should be cleared up, the whole 'evolution is still only a theory' argument is bullcrap. Evolution is a proven FACT and has been observed by scientists, the only unknown is the exact process that created the life we know today, but the idea that evolution doesn't exist at all is redundant.

[JohnM81]

One thing that should be cleared up, the whole 'evolution is still only a theory' argument is bullcrap. Evolution is a proven FACT and has been observed by scientists, the only unknown is the exact process that created the life we know today, but the idea that evolution doesn't exist at all is redundant.


Evolution is a proven fact? By Science? How odd you made this claim when science doesn't prove anything only disprove things. I suggest you brush up on your scientific method a little.

[Newscaster]

I agree with Moses that Evolution is a proven fact, both from a micro and macro point of view.Science does not only disprove things.......science proves more things that any of us can count and to think others is an example of NOT thinking. But despite this, the one thing that amazes me is the constant focus on where we allegedly come from from and not giving a damn about where we are going. You are so afraid of winding up in that place you call Hell. Lets face it, nobody, creationists or evolutionists have ever proven there is such a place and if there is, where is it?
You dont care what effect you have on our world of today, pooh poohing global warming as baloney bu doing nothing to prove or disprove that it is happening. You claim science is bunk but you engage in trash science to make our point. Your scientists, the one who supposedly have proven the correctness of creation, have no applicable scientific background to make any such pronouncement. You would never go to a dentist if you had a broken leg and yet you depend on a geologist to prove biological progressions.
Where we come from is a nice exercize that really means nothing, including who or what started us on that voyage but all of us are headed toward what could become a global tragedy and that you ignore.

[JohnM81]

I agree with Moses that Evolution is a proven fact, both from a micro and macro point of view.Science does not only disprove things.......science proves more things that any of us can count and to think others is an example of NOT thinking.


http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScientificMethod.html
"The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. "



Agreeing with someone who is wrong is never a good idea.

[Newscaster]

You keeping thing that John. See how far it gets you.

[Buck Laser]

http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScientificMethod.html
"The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. "

Agreeing with someone who is wrong is never a good idea.

John, I have an innate distrust of someone who uses the word "tenant" when the word "tenet" is correct. If that's an exact quote of a published source, then you clearly don't have a good source. If, on the other hand, you simply mixed up the two words, then I can understand it.

Secondly, I think one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method is that you can never prove a negative--e.g., that if you drop a rock, it's always going to fall, so far as anyone knows: but you can't prove that it will never fall.

I'd go back to the drawing board if I were you.

[JohnM81]

You keeping thing that John. See how far it gets you.





Oh, ok.[hr]

http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScientificMethod.html
"The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. "

Agreeing with someone who is wrong is never a good idea.

John, I have an innate distrust of someone who uses the word "tenant" when the word "tenet" is correct. If that's an exact quote of a published source, then you clearly don't have a good source. If, on the other hand, you simply mixed up the two words, then I can understand it.

Secondly, I think one of the fundamental tenets of the scientific method is that you can never prove a negative--e.g., that if you drop a rock, it's always going to fall, so far as anyone knows: but you can't prove that it will never fall.

I'd go back to the drawing board if I were you.





If you so desired you could have checked out the source credentials yourself. But as for what is stated, any simple google search will yield the same info.


But as the source...


Click on this address for that info:
http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/

"Dr. Malachowski originally trained as a space radiation biologist. He spent his early career working with NASA evaluating the physiology of space travel, to mars and the moon, on astronauts and the sustainability of the environment through closed ecological life support systems. He has spent several decades working for CCSF. He specializes in Anatomy, Physiology, and Toxicology (which is integrated into his Ecology and Environmental activities). More recently he has become involved with educational technology, instructional design, telecourses, distance learning and the use of the internet in the learning environment. He personalizes the learning experience and incorporates new concepts, processes, and technology in his classes to facilitate the engagement of learning process. Participant activities are demanding and require active cognitive creation, problem-solving, reasoning, decision-making, evaluation, and group dynamics. Current interest areas include hyperbaric medicine, diving physiology, and exploration of the underwater environment."





And being you are suggesting that this guy should go back to the drawing board may I ask you for your credentials "Buck Laser"?

[Buck Laser]

And being you are suggesting that this guy should go back to the drawing board may I ask you for your credentials "Buck Laser"?


Well, no. I'm suggesting that you should go back to the drawing board, John.

And you certainly may ask about my credentials. And I certainly might tell you. But if I told you, then I'd have to kill you. :shock:

[Newscaster]

All those credentials from that doctor Malachowski but not a single one related to planetary creation or even solar existence or creation. Nothing about the study of Novas or supernovas or little green men. (Yes, there is a theory that space aliens visited earth and actually started the creation of men by leaving a few of them here) Did Dr Malachowski do any studying of those topics or doe he have any speciic degrees dealing with evolution? Show me me evidence of his expertise in the area of biological advancement. Then he might qualify for recognition of his work in the evolutionary field. BUT AS I POSTED EARLIER...YOU DONT GO TO THE DENTIST FOR A BROKEN LEG.

[JohnM81]

And being you are suggesting that this guy should go back to the drawing board may I ask you for your credentials "Buck Laser"?


Well, no. I'm suggesting that you should go back to the drawing board, John.

And you certainly may ask about my credentials. And I certainly might tell you. But if I told you, then I'd have to kill you. :shock:




Funny, I quote him, and you say go back to the drawing board. When you find this out, you say oh I need to go back to the drawing board.

It was his quote that reafirmed what I said.[hr]
All those credentials from that doctor Malachowski but not a single one related to planetary creation or even solar existence or creation. Nothing about the study of Novas or supernovas or little green men. (Yes, there is a theory that space aliens visited earth and actually started the creation of men by leaving a few of them here) Did Dr Malachowski do any studying of those topics or doe he have any speciic degrees dealing with evolution? Show me me evidence of his expertise in the area of biological advancement. Then he might qualify for recognition of his work in the evolutionary field. BUT AS I POSTED EARLIER...YOU DONT GO TO THE DENTIST FOR A BROKEN LEG.



Newscaster, if you spent like 3 min just clicking around on the guys website you would see he has a PhD in biology and is even teaching classes that cover evolution and ecology.

To add to what I said, the subjects that he teaches is irrelevant to my point. The fact that he is a scientist is enough for him to speak about the scientific method in general.

[Newscaster]

John, with all of those degrees, I might say that Malachoski is NOT an expert in any of those scientific fields. Back in my college days (I have a double Masters) I had a few friends whose sole aim was to amass degrees. There were five of these guys and today, three are retailers, one has died never having used any of his degrees and I have no idea what the fifth guy is doing. I have known people who got their degrees at Bible Colleges and while those schools may be perectly fine for religious matters, those graduates would be the dentists I would not go to with a broken leg to ask about evolution from a scientific perspective.. Possession of degrees is not an indication of expertise. It just shows you are good at taking tests. Its how you use your degree or degrees. You are self, when you first mentioned Malachowski, never mentioned an evolution related degrees. So that subject apparantly is not a big one on his resume. I shall regard it as the same. Doesnt it hack you off not being able to convince someone of your agenda?

[JohnM81]

John, with all of those degrees, I might say that Malachoski is NOT an expert in any of those scientific fields. Back in my college days (I have a double Masters) I had a few friends whose sole aim was to amass degrees. There were five of these guys and today, three are retailers, one has died never having used any of his degrees and I have no idea what the fifth guy is doing. I have known people who got their degrees at Bible Colleges and while those schools may be perectly fine for religious matters, those graduates would be the dentists I would not go to with a broken leg to ask about evolution from a scientific perspective.. Possession of degrees is not an indication of expertise. It just shows you are good at taking tests. Its how you use your degree or degrees. You are self, when you first mentioned Malachowski, never mentioned an evolution related degrees. So that subject apparantly is not a big one on his resume. I shall regard it as the same. Doesnt it hack you off not being able to convince someone of your agenda?


Where does it say he has a lot degrees?

So let me get this straight, I tell you about one of the basic principles of the scientific method. Then I find a secular scientist who is well qualified (in teaching topics like evolution and ecology) who says the EXACT same thing that I said. And you still don't believe it.

So you don't believe me because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions. You don't believe a secular scientist because it doesn't fit your preconcieved notions. And then to top it all of you state this:

"Doesnt it hack you off not being able to convince someone of your agenda?"

What is clear here is it is you with the agenda that you are holding on to so tight you aren't willing to listen to me (I can understand that) or a secular scientist (which does surprise me). Makes me wonder if you truely believe in the merits of science at all....

[Newscaster]

If he doesnt have the degrees, then I have to assume that he has not done the study or did them unsuccessfully. If either of those situations are the case, then I cannot give his work the credibility it requires.
My acceptance or rejection of this Mr Malachoski is not at all based on any preconceived notion. Its is based on scientific credibility that is accepted pretty universally. Just as you cannot call someone DOCTOR so and so if he has not done the requisite study and suvived the required testing, it takes a lot more than just, as you put it, being well qualifiedf to talk on a subject and be accepted as an expert. It doesnt work that way. You prove you are an expert and THEN you talk and so far, I dont see that proof that he is any kind of expert on EVOLUTION.
As far as my having an agenda....yes I certainly do. My agenda is fighting those people who espouce nonsense science as being real science. My agenda is countering a group of non-scientists who pooh pooh real science done in real labs under fully accepted scientific guidelines and protocols. I dont accept as proof of anything, something that cannot be replicated in a real laboratory with the replication being done by neutral scientists who have no agenda of their own, be it religious, financial or whatever.
Earlier today, after posting one of my early diatribes, I sat mulling over the situation where creation is touted as real and evolution is branded as pagan or just trash. I came to the conclusion that most creationists really don't believe their own arguments. There is simly far too much evidence available today in favor of evolution for it to be fake. That evidence involve macro and microevolution of everything from microbes and viruses to elephants and wooly mammoths. Creationists make fun of evolution with the childish exclamation that "they did not descend from monkeys." They say that and strike away preening themselves for the scientific coup they just scored. But i you know even just a tad about evolution, you know there is no claim thatwe descended from monkeys. Our ancesters happen to be noyt the monkeys with tails but the great apes with similar DNA. Not exact but similar because we did not descend from apes. We descended from a link that branched out and produced both great apes and humans. And there is also more than enough evidrence to recognize that the earth is NOT six thousand years old but millions of years old. And unlike your scientist Mr. Malachowski, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

I believe the Creationist theory is the lazy man's way of explaining a very very complicated stream of provable event. And you can't do the required research from a pulpit. You must be in a fully equipped laboratory. John, can you tell me where I will find the lab that does the required research for the creationists? Nop body seems to know where that lab is.

Now, I have said my piece. I shall now go and rest. You may accept what I say or reject it as you will and at your leisure. It really doesnt matter because what you say and what I say will not change your mind or mine or history.

[Troubadour]

So, what do you think?


Umm, about what? They observed a dust cloud that, according to physics, will likely accrete over millions of years into rocky planets. If the conditions are right, some chemical elements on one or several of those planets will yield a self-sustaining recombinant process, i.e. life, and local manifestations of the process will adapt within the parameters of the environment. "Creation" does not exist - only change.

[Newscaster]

Troubadour, I agree with you. Its too bad there are so many others who don't but, Evolution will continue whether or not there is a platoon of believers. And thats good for us.

[JohnM81]

If he doesnt have the degrees, then I have to assume that he has not done the study or did them unsuccessfully. If either of those situations are the case, then I cannot give his work the credibility it requires.
My acceptance or rejection of this Mr Malachoski is not at all based on any preconceived notion. Its is based on scientific credibility that is accepted pretty universally. Just as you cannot call someone DOCTOR so and so if he has not done the requisite study and suvived the required testing, it takes a lot more than just, as you put it, being well qualifiedf to talk on a subject and be accepted as an expert. It doesnt work that way. You prove you are an expert and THEN you talk and so far, I dont see that proof that he is any kind of expert on EVOLUTION.
As far as my having an agenda....yes I certainly do. My agenda is fighting those people who espouce nonsense science as being real science. My agenda is countering a group of non-scientists who pooh pooh real science done in real labs under fully accepted scientific guidelines and protocols. I dont accept as proof of anything, something that cannot be replicated in a real laboratory with the replication being done by neutral scientists who have no agenda of their own, be it religious, financial or whatever.
Earlier today, after posting one of my early diatribes, I sat mulling over the situation where creation is touted as real and evolution is branded as pagan or just trash. I came to the conclusion that most creationists really don't believe their own arguments. There is simly far too much evidence available today in favor of evolution for it to be fake. That evidence involve macro and microevolution of everything from microbes and viruses to elephants and wooly mammoths. Creationists make fun of evolution with the childish exclamation that "they did not descend from monkeys." They say that and strike away preening themselves for the scientific coup they just scored. But i you know even just a tad about evolution, you know there is no claim thatwe descended from monkeys. Our ancesters happen to be noyt the monkeys with tails but the great apes with similar DNA. Not exact but similar because we did not descend from apes. We descended from a link that branched out and produced both great apes and humans. And there is also more than enough evidrence to recognize that the earth is NOT six thousand years old but millions of years old. And unlike your scientist Mr. Malachowski, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

I believe the Creationist theory is the lazy man's way of explaining a very very complicated stream of provable event. And you can't do the required research from a pulpit. You must be in a fully equipped laboratory. John, can you tell me where I will find the lab that does the required research for the creationists? Nop body seems to know where that lab is.

Now, I have said my piece. I shall now go and rest. You may accept what I say or reject it as you will and at your leisure. It really doesnt matter because what you say and what I say will not change your mind or mine or history.




You say the source doesn't have degrees that makes him an expert yet he has a PhD in BIOLOGY the very field that advances the topic of Evolution. You say you aren't sure of this guys qualifications and yet he TEACHES courses in evolution and ecology.

You can't get more qualified than that.


"John, can you tell me where I will find the lab that does the required research for the creationists?"

No I wont tell you because as far as I know no such place exists. Creationism isn't a scientific theory. Religion isn't science. I think we can both agree to that. And about the rest of your post on creationism vs evolution, Im not talking to you about that right now. The topic here is plain and clear. It is about what exactly science does according to the scientific method.

However you are being willingly ignorant to my sources credentials.







From Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html
It is often said in science that theories can never be proved, only disproved.

From University of Indiana
http://www.indiana.edu/~educy520/sec5982/week_1/inquiry_sci_method02.pdf
Keep in mind that theories and hypotheses can never be proved, only disproved,

Georgia Perimeter College
http://gpc.edu/~pgore/Earth&Space/GPS/scientificmethod.html
Note that theories can never be proven, but theories can be disproved if there appears to be observational or experimental data that contradict the theory, or if the predictions of the theory are incorrect.

[And finally lets not forget our good friend....]

http://fog.ccsf.cc.ca.us/~mmalacho/ScientificMethod.html
"The basic tenant of the Scientific Method is that you can only disprove, you can never prove anything scientifically. "




Face it, you misunderstood the scientific process. Its ok a lot of people do. But what I told you is correct science doesn't prove anything only disproves....

[Newscaster]

And yet, the word evolution is no where to be seen.

[JohnM81]

And yet, the word evolution is no where to be seen.


1. Actualy it is seen. In the list of classes he teaches

2. Secondly, evolution is subject to the scientific method like any other theory. It is not evolution we are arguing rather whether science in general can prove something regardless if we are talking about physics, biology (evolution), gravity, ect....

[Newscaster]

Well baby, you think we are arguing science an not evolution. Think what you like but there are going to be a lot of disappointed people who unfortunately will have to read that those scientists who yoiu say only are able to disprove things, come up with the exact "missing link", the creature that in the course of evolution came to a cross roads in its own development, thus giving rise to both man and the great apes and all those people who claim not to be descendants of monkeys, will actually be making monkeys of themselves.

Now tell me again how earth, the sun, the moon, animals, people, the oceans, the who entire list of things involved in making earth as it is today, came about in 144 hours (thats six days). And explain what God was doing all that time before he decided to "create" earth and all the rest. He surely didnt have an Ipod or a DVD player or something else to keep him busy. Did he just sit around? And by the way, how long did he sit around before deciding to create something? And if there was absolutely nothing in existence before creation, how did God come to be? Was he thre creation of yet another God? I dont ask these questions to be arrogant or something but if you are going to put forth a theory that has so many holes in it, then you have to be ready for the questions to follow.
I can buy the argument that that God laid the ground work for evolution by putting the building blocks in place and then sitting back to watch what happened. This way you answer the question of how long did it take but to arbitrarily pick the number 6 thousand and swear by it when there is no such evidence of that....well, credibility tends to slip away.
And now, while you focus on how we got here, I shall focus on more important questions.....where are we going, how will we get there and who will be in charge when we arrive. My children and their children's lives depend upon the answer to those questions.[hr]John, tell me what Drs Jonas Salk and Carl Sabin were trying to disprove when they found a preventative for polio. Tell me what scientists in Cancer labs are trying to disprove. In sceince for a discovery to be validated, scientists mu prove that the rrsults of th work oif the first scientist can be duplicated. If a bunch of such scientists, working independently come up with similar lab results, they can declare the first man's ork as valid. If they get differing results, its means the first guy goes back to the lab. Those scientists are not trying to shoot down the first guys work unless they is a financial aspect at stake like patents and such. But verifying something is not the same as shooting it down.

Now, you point to Dr Malachoski's PHD in Biology. Thats cool but biology is one hell of a large area taking in many disciplines and you list shows your Dotor as being all over the playing field. You know the old saying about being a jack of all trades and a master at none. I am a journalist and until I retired, I was in the field for about 40 years. Journalist, like science is also a very complicated field because it covers so many subjects including all phases of science as well as economics, military, philosophy, etc etc etc and I dont know of a single journalist who considers himself a credible spokesman for for any but one or maybe two areas. I also know journalists who will argue with you that you cannot mix faith and science and come up with reality. And John, you would not want to try debating them.

Anyway as they say......its Sunday and I am taking the day off from this discussion and any others that might show up. But I can say, I have enjoyed sparring with you. You are an excellent debater and for that alone, I give you great credibility. We just disagree on subject matter and its that disagreement that can result in progress. Sincerely, have a good day and Happy Thanksgiving.

[JohnM81]

Well baby, you think we are arguing science an not evolution. Think what you like but there are going to be a lot of disappointed people who unfortunately will have to read that those scientists who yoiu say only are able to disprove things, come up with the exact "missing link", the creature that in the course of evolution came to a cross roads in its own development, thus giving rise to both man and the great apes and all those people who claim not to be descendants of monkeys, will actually be making monkeys of themselves.

Now tell me again how earth, the sun, the moon, animals, people, the oceans, the who entire list of things involved in making earth as it is today, came about in 144 hours (thats six days). And explain what God was doing all that time before he decided to "create" earth and all the rest. He surely didnt have an Ipod or a DVD player or something else to keep him busy. Did he just sit around? And by the way, how long did he sit around before deciding to create something? And if there was absolutely nothing in existence before creation, how did God come to be? Was he thre creation of yet another God? I dont ask these questions to be arrogant or something but if you are going to put forth a theory that has so many holes in it, then you have to be ready for the questions to follow.
I can buy the argument that that God laid the ground work for evolution by putting the building blocks in place and then sitting back to watch what happened. This way you answer the question of how long did it take but to arbitrarily pick the number 6 thousand and swear by it when there is no such evidence of that....well, credibility tends to slip away.
And now, while you focus on how we got here, I shall focus on more important questions.....where are we going, how will we get there and who will be in charge when we arrive. My children and their children's lives depend upon the answer to those questions.[hr]John, tell me what Drs Jonas Salk and Carl Sabin were trying to disprove when they found a preventative for polio. Tell me what scientists in Cancer labs are trying to disprove. In sceince for a discovery to be validated, scientists mu prove that the rrsults of th work oif the first scientist can be duplicated. If a bunch of such scientists, working independently come up with similar lab results, they can declare the first man's ork as valid. If they get differing results, its means the first guy goes back to the lab. Those scientists are not trying to shoot down the first guys work unless they is a financial aspect at stake like patents and such. But verifying something is not the same as shooting it down.

Now, you point to Dr Malachoski's PHD in Biology. Thats cool but biology is one hell of a large area taking in many disciplines and you list shows your Dotor as being all over the playing field. You know the old saying about being a jack of all trades and a master at none. I am a journalist and until I retired, I was in the field for about 40 years. Journalist, like science is also a very complicated field because it covers so many subjects including all phases of science as well as economics, military, philosophy, etc etc etc and I dont know of a single journalist who considers himself a credible spokesman for for any but one or maybe two areas. I also know journalists who will argue with you that you cannot mix faith and science and come up with reality. And John, you would not want to try debating them.

Anyway as they say......its Sunday and I am taking the day off from this discussion and any others that might show up. But I can say, I have enjoyed sparring with you. You are an excellent debater and for that alone, I give you great credibility. We just disagree on subject matter and its that disagreement that can result in progress. Sincerely, have a good day and Happy Thanksgiving.





Once again... I am not here to get distracted by you trying to change the topic here. You and I can debate creationism vs macro evolution some other time. The topic here is your apparent misunderstanding of the scientific process that as you have seen multiple universities/colleges, a professor, and myself tell you about your mistake.

Riiight, so according to you Dr Malachoski is wrong and University of Rochester is wrong AND University of Indiana is wrong AND Georgia Perimeter College is also wrong! Laughable. This isn't journalism. This isn't a matter of opinion. This is objective established science.

You asked a question about what those scientists were trying to disprove. I would need to know what the hypothesis/theory that they were basing their experiment after to answer that. Or they weren't trying to prove or disprove anything.

"In sceince for a discovery to be validated, scientists mu prove that the rrsults of th work oif the first scientist can be duplicated."

No, they try to replicate the experiment to test the predictive power of a theory. They aren't trying to test the results they are trying to disprove the original theory. And here is the main point, I can get the same results that some other scientist got and the theory can still be wrong.



Again, science doesn't prove anything it can only disprove theories.

[Newscaster]

No John, I dont think Malachowski is wrong. Nor are the Universities of Rochester and Indiana. I think it is you who is wrong in your interpretation of what they are doing. I dont think scientists go into a laboratory to prove something false. I believe they go to do something positive. That positive can be the result of their own original work or in verifying the work of a colleague. They may find that thei original work is faulty and more work is needed but I do not believe that finding fault was their original goal. If a scientist says he has found a cur4e for some disease, everyone hopes he is right and th colleagues get to work replicating the wok to hopefully get the same results, not to hopefully find that their fellow scientist has been wasting his time. John, you dont have to be a rocket scientist to understand that.

[Tsky]

My problem with the theory of evolution is simple.

The premise of evolution was based on faulty assumptions. Freud didn't believe in God or the creation account so he sought to find other viable answers. Therefore he assumed that since there cannot be a God, life must have come about on its own. The problem is that he based his theories on unsupported facts and hoped that future scientific discoveries would prove him right. Not surprisingly many other non-God believers picked up where Freud left off and presumed that advanced scientific methods proved Freud right. Many, many people don't believe a false premise perpetuated by others who believed in a false premise has changed evolution from theory to fact. Science cannot and does not explain obvious designs in nature which should not exist if life is a random process. Science has not duplicate the process of creating something from nothing. Any scientific experiments that creates life are used from existing matter. In order for scientists to live by their own standards of proof, they must be able to test their hypothesis. It boggles my mind that any thinking person would not wonder how scientists can be 100% sure that life originated spontaneously from non-living matter w/o any guidance and created all known life without being able to replicate the process. Scientists forget that the ability to explain how something works does not mean you can also determine how something came to exist.

If I stumble upon an intricately designed house in the middle of the desert and am able to determine with expert precision the exact tools used to make the house does that make me an expert on buidling houses? Hardly! It just means I was smart enough to figure out how something was done, that's it.

Scientists also change definitions to suit their needs. The word theory used to mean, well, theory. Today theory doesn't mean theory it means fact when used in scientific terms. Alrighty then.

[Newscaster]

Just two items.
If I found a well made home in the middle of the desert, I would not figure out how it was made. I would knock on the door and ask for a glass of water.

And

Evolution occurs for two reasons....environment and need. And Freud has nothing to do with it.

[moses2792796]

I think the assumption is creationism, evolution only requires observation.

[JohnM81]

No John, I dont think Malachowski is wrong. Nor are the Universities of Rochester and Indiana. I think it is you who is wrong in your interpretation of what they are doing.


Newscaster, you are making yourself look rediculous. Interpretation? You have to be kidding me. They specifically say what I have told you all along. I don't know if its your lack of scientific training that is making such a simple and accepted principle of science that other scientists (such as myself) know to be true so hard to understand.

Look, one can make a strong case for evolution, but when evolutions proponents don't even understand the scientific method it makes it a hard sale.

Lastly, you keep bringing up this example of a scientist working on a drug or vaccine. Why? We aren't talking about the development of a product. We are talking about science being able to develop a theory and if it can ever be considered proven or not. A scientist in a lab working on a drug isn't developing a theory.

If you want to argue evolution by all means do it. But please you aren't helping your side when you don't know the basics of science.

[Buck Laser]

When I was in college in the 50s, there really weren't any significant disputes about evolution that I was aware of. I'd guess that even 20 years ago, most people accepted that evolution was a pretty good description of how life developed and adapted to its ever changing environment. The Scopes trial was 25 years behind us, and nobody but a few nutso preachers bothered with tilting at windmills.

For the life of me, I cannot understand why ANY Christian feels it necessary to attack evolution. Is their faith so weak that any other explanation of life other than the biblical one has to be stamped out? The "intelligent design" people get their asses whupped every time they try to make their faith into something scientific, and people of a more empirical turn of mind have way too much fun ridiculing others who just can't think straight.

I'm a participant in the forums at Internet Infidels (http://www.iidb.org/vbb/index.php) , where most of the serious discussion takes place. There are real scientists there, and there are a good many people who believe seriously in creationism there. As a Christian myself, I think it's profoundly embarrassing to see the creationists clinging feebly to intellectual constructs that are so full of wholes they'l blow away with the faintest breeze. I guess some people just have way too much time on their hands. :shame:

[I Like Beer]

As a Christian myself, I think it's profoundly embarrassing to see the creationists clinging feebly to intellectual constructs that are so full of wholes they'l blow away with the faintest breeze. I guess some people just have way too much time on their hands. :shame:

Very well said.

Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species through Natural Selection has not been proven.

However, it fits the observations and data, you can make predictions based on it, and it can be replicated naturally (see Darwin's finches, antibiotic resistance) and artificially (milk cows, domestic dog breeds).

With the advent of Molecular Genetics, the theory has been strengthened due to the amount of genetic homology between diverse species. Embryology and larval development also add evidence to the "theory". The stages a human fetus passes through or the fact that the same genes do similar things in a wide variety of species during development.

I could go on and on.

Yet, no one. No one can give one example to falsify this theory.

Tsky - if you want to look at a complex object that couldn't come into existence without a creator, why don't we look at the eye? Why do ostriches have wings? Why do blind cavefish have eyes? Why did rabbits get such a bad digestive system that they have to eat their own excrement to get all the nutrients from their food?

I could also go on and on about the evidence that the Earth is well over 6000 years old, too.

With all the lengths creationists go to (like trying desperately to find a real use for the vermiform appendix) they are embarrassing themselves.

[Buck Laser]

"I think it's profoundly embarrassing to see the creationists clinging feebly to intellectual constructs that are so full of wholes they'l blow away with the faintest breeze. I guess some people just have way too much time on their hands. :shame:"

As someone who's an occasional spelling nazi, I feel like digging a deep hole and pulling it in after me for letting that typo go by. The dropped L in "they'll" was just laziness. I may be careless, but I'm not elitterayte.

[Newscaster]

John, by the way....what is your scientific background? Just curious as to the kind of maven you fancy yourself to be.

[piratemonkey]

Face it, you misunderstood the scientific process. Its ok a lot of people do. But what I told you is correct science doesn't prove anything only disproves....


Okaaay...

You seem to be really hung up on this word "proven," a word you'll rarely ever hear a scientist use in the context of describing evidence.

So hows about this? Let's apply your own criteria to your own theory. Show us that creationism is "proven."

[David Hume]

One could say that eventually the evidence for evolution will simply be too great for creationists to deny, but there are still a small number of people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old.


And then there are those of us who already know the evidence for evolution is too strong to deny, and yet there remain people too ignorant and/or weak-minded to have a look into the facts. . .

[I Like Beer]

And then there are those of us who already know the evidence for evolution is too strong to deny, and yet there remain people too ignorant and/or weak-minded to have a look into the facts. . .


I'm amazed that so often religious people will look askance at science when it contradicts religious teaching claiming that religion is a matter of faith. However, when there's the whiff that science may actually support bible lore these same people will laud science.

This double standard (only believing the science that you like) never seems to strike them as odd.

It's the same phenomenon in the Global Warming debate.

When GW deniers or creationists find 'scientists' who support their view, we are treated to a long list of these individuals' accomplishments and education and their 'evidence' is accepted as truth. On the other hand, mainstream scientists who support GW and evolution are demonized.

Go figure.

[Shintao]

Christianity is to new a religion to have a view of creationism, but the creator of the universe who was here 2000 years before christ, Ra, definately says he created all things, and that would include planetary cycles of life. I don't recall he did it in 6 days though, but whatever............ maybe he had his lesser Gods do it for him.[hr]

Darwin's theory on the Origin of Species through Natural Selection has not been proven.

However, it fits the observations and data, you can make predictions based on it, and it can be replicated naturally (see Darwin's finches, antibiotic resistance) and artificially (milk cows, domestic dog breeds).

I could go on and on.

What ya doing, chumming for a beer? :madlaugh: I'll buy if ya go on and on......:clapper: