Fight over teaching evolution in Texas fizzles

[Denny]

Post 167

[Maddhattter]

See, this is the main reason why neither of us will see eye to eye on this. You base your BELIEF on these hypotheses to come to a stretch of a conclusion.

Except there is no stretch, at least not scientifically. But we do fundamentally agree that we won’t see eye to eye on this. I require testable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence before I will believe something and…

My BELIEF is based on faith.

Which I take no issues with. I’ve stated before, I don’t care what people believe. Truth claims are not about what anyone believes, it’s about what can be proven and that’s what science is all about.

It is funny, though; the last time there was a discussion on this I brought up how the biblical order of creation was right in line with science, but I don't remember if it was ever addressed by anyone else. I may have to go find it (thinking it was in Canada somewhere). But for arguement's sake, I can post it up again. If we can verify "Moses' hypotheses" (if we need to refer it as such for this scenario) through "scientific fact," then can we conclude that he is right?

Yes, we could prove that Moses got the timeline correct. Problem is you must “interpret” what he said, and assume he meant what he did not say, to prove it.

Just use "day" to mean a length of time, since my personal BELIEF is more in line with the "day-period" theory. It could also not necessarily mean consecutive days, again it doesn't say for sure.

If you just arbitrarily change definitions to suit your preferred interpretation, then there is nothing to discuss. If we changed the definitions to what the word does not mean, the words could mean anything. After all, it doesn’t explicitly say that God does not mean Zeus or Bigfoot or a teapot.

Order of Creation:
Genesis 1:1 was before the first day. It states "in the beginning." If you look at the wording, the heavens and the earth were already created. Now, what happened before that, I don't know, but I'm not going to say "millions and billions of years ago, this was here and this was happening." since I have nothing to back those claims up. If you look carefully, though, verse 1:2 talks about the earth being formless AND it was covered with deep waters.

Could there have been something prior to "Day 1" of Creation on earth? Could the earth had some sort of thriving life before "this" Creation? How far back was "In the beginning?" He flooded the earth during Noah's day. He said it would be the last time, but was it the first? I take every word of the Bible as having a specific meaning. Ya, it has been butchered and re-translated several times over, but I also belive that He got His Word to me in a specific way for a specific reason.

OK, so we have the heavens and a water-filled earth to bring us to Day 1. Now, as most things that I've read pertaining to scientific order of events, this hunk of rock started life out in water as well, so I'm still cool here.

Day 1- God made light upon the earth and separated it from darkness.

OK, since I have said that I believe that the heavens and earth were already around at this point, then the sun was already doing its thing, BUT no light shown on the earth yet. Now, science has stated that the earth could have started off with a heavy layer of gasous clouds and water vapor (possibly blocking any sunlight?). So, I'm still cool, y'all.

Day 2- The separation of the midst of waters from waters and the accumulation of land.

So, with the heavy gases and water vapors parting to allow sunlight, it allows water to collect in the form of seas, making room for land (getting that whole evaporation, condensation, precipitation thingy-muh-gig going). That process would be needed to start any sustainment of life on earth, scientifically speaking, of course.

Day 3- Vegetation, plantlife, seeding, etc.

Now, I'm no scientist, but I reckon that one of dem edumucated fellers in dem big schools would agree that the vegetation came before the chicken and the egg, so I think we still cool, here.

Day 4- Separation of the light from the night and order of sun, moon and stars.

This gets a little tricky, as I'm merely just a simpleton, trying to understand the Creator of everything. I believe that the solar system (even galaxy, for that matter) finally aligned itself into the order and positioning (timing) we have today. Notice that now living creatures were named yet, so who knows what went on when it was just plantlife... but then again, this is just what I gather from reading the Bible.

Day 5- Sea creatures and birds.

From just plants and vegetation to sea creatures and birds perfectly describes the transition of the Cretaceous and Tertiary eras. Am I still correct, here? If so, that's about right in order with science as well, so we're still cool.

Day 6- All the other "beasts of the earth" and LASTLY, man.

While that kinda loses the other orders of eras in a vague generality, it doesn't go against anything scientifically stated either, especially man being a very young creation, compared to everything else.

Ok, so this is what you believe. There’s no evidence to back up your claim that:

1. Moses meant anything other than exactly what he said.
2. That a god/gods had any hand in the process.

Just because something isn’t excluded explicitly, doesn’t make it scientifically valid, as science requires evidence to support your claim. Again, I don’t care what you believe, it’s when you make truth claims that the problem arises. You cannot determine truth without evidence.

I could produce several sources that have similar theories, but none will have my exact theory, as they shouldn't because each and every believer has their own personal belief. I accept this since we all have our own personal relationship with God and exercise our own free will that He's given us.

Some sites that each have their own interpretations as well:

http://www.clarifyingchristianity.com/creation.shtml

http://www.suite101.com/content/the-order-of-creation-a16134

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html (this one is pretty close to mine. In fact, this is where I got help with the eras I mentioned, but he lost me on a few other parts... which is OK).

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...rett/esct.html

It doesn’t matter how many people agree with any hypothesis, yours or otherwise. What you still don’t have is a theory, at least not in the scientific sense.

Anyway, I guess since this conversation is obviously spinning its wheels in place, I thought I'd just lay out what I get from both the Bible AND science. Feel free to tear it up, but I needed to get the point across that there are no two believers of Creation that will have the same interpretation about ANYTHING that is from the Bible.

This is not a boon to religion’s claims of being a universal truth.

Hell, even scientists come up with different theories about one subject.

No, they don’t. They have different hypothesis’. A scientific theory is as close to a truth as science will attest to.

I just hope that you don't think that we're all just mindless drones that don't think for themselves.

I don’t. That’s the reason I address your points the way I do. But, just because you’re not a mindless drone does not mean that your arguments will not bear enough similarities with another one to have the same issues.

[Maddhattter]

Madhatter and racrguy have a tendency to get on any conversation and simply say that evidence you present is not valid. It doesn't matter if you have theologians or Dr.'s or scientists..they always have some reason to discount anyone they don't agree with.

Lies. In every case, I’ve explained and demonstrated how you’ve not once had a valid source to be dismissed because you’ve never put a valid source up to be dismissed.
In the Theology Corner, I even handled your failed arguments and analogies. You just ignored that and claimed that you had any idea what my response would be and ran.

This is a typical response to someone who cannot refute the actual scientific evidence of an argument. Any "Evidence" from evolution I can refute with "Evidence" from creationism.

Then present some, with valid sources and don’t run off when I don’t follow your script.

Notice they do not have an answer for the scientific decay of the Earth's magnetic field

No need to. Evolution works just fine with your unsupported assertion.

or the human artifacts found throughout the geologic column

You’re right, all the human artifacts are right where they are expected to be, based on actual scientific theory.

that is evidence of a young Earth/ creation.

Except that it’s not evidence of a young earth/creation. All the human artifacts are found exactly where they are expected to be based on the old earth model that evidence indicates. So, no problem there.

They will try to attack the author of the piece or where it was published but they don't address the actual science.

Again, more lies. I’ve done exactly that here, and in the Theology Corner. You’ve just failed to produce any science to back up your claims.

Again, they cannot produce "Scientific evidence" of where the first bit of matter came from.

Holy shit, an actual truth.

With the current level of technology, no we don’t know where matter came from. That doesn’t affect the theory of evolution, and gives no credibility to the supernatural alternative you propose, as you still have no scientific evidence to support your claim.

The whole evolution argument rests on that question but no scientist can answer it (Seems kinda important guys).

You’ve had this explained to you before now, but I’ll repeat.

Evolution does not rest on how matter came to be, or how life started. As matter is here, and life is here, it is safe to assume that matter came to be and life started. Evolution doesn’t cover bio-genesis, or cosmic-genesis.

The idea of a universe beginning with a big bang goes against empirical science and the laws of physics

No it doesn’t, and as you demonstrate that you only have the most basic of science understanding, and a compulsion to be dishonest, I’ll explain how you’re wrong.

(Let's see if they believe the laws of physics are a valid source or if the fact that I am quoting it makes it untrue).

Doesn’t matter who says it, thus far, you’d still be wrong. Let’s continue, shall we?

The 1st Law of Thermodynamics has shown that energy and matter remain constant. They can be transferred from one into the other but neither can appear from nothing. Even basic common sense and logic tells us that it is obvious that something can simply not come from nothing.

Theists claim that their particular flavor of supernatural force/entity magiced up everything from nothing. Neither science, evolution, nor the “big bang” theory do anything of the sort. In the “big bang” model, all matter and energy were compressed to a single point. Never is the claim that anything came from nowhere. We just don’t know where we came from.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that the everything in the universe is running down and decaying. But to believe in a big bang would mean that the opposite is true... out of chaos order came into being and rather than decaying and becoming more disorderly, life and the universe is becoming more orderly. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics refutes this. The Bible, far from being at odds with science (as some have erroneously been led to believe), actually tells us that the universe is running down and becoming more disorderly just as the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has revealed (Isa. 51:6; Ps. 102:25-26; Rom. 8:21).

Except you’re wrong again. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that “There is no process that, operating in a cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work.

Alternatively: The entropy of an isolated macroscopic system not in equilibrium will tend to increase over time, approaching a maximum value at equilibrium.

In other words, energy will disperse if not hindered. It has nothing to do with “running down and becoming more disorderly” or “running down and decaying”. Please learn science before you infect others with your lies and ignorance.

But that's not important I guess. As I have said before, they argue in a vacuum.

Considering you’ve been demonstrably wrong on everything aside from science not knowing how matter originated, why stop now?

It is important, it just isn’t a conflict. You just don’t have the basic understanding to know what you’re talking about and are too dishonest to admit it.

They can't prove their beliefs so they can only attack ours.

I attack truth claims with no supporting evidence, like almost every attempt you’ve made.

Faith is not devoid of evidence.

Faith is devoid of evidence, by definition. This has been explained and demonstrated already.

It just is that last little piece you cant prove but given all the other evidence...it just makes sense.

What you think “just makes sense” is not science, and has no evidence to support it.

The order of the universe, the complexity of a single human cell, the balance and order of life just doesn't point to the random chaos of the big bang.

That’s ok, because none of that was around when the “big bang” occurred. However, physics takes care of the order of the universe, and evolution takes care of the rest.

Let's ignore for the moment that there is no viable explanation of where the initial atoms came from.

We could also not ignore it. It would make no difference to “big bang” cosmology or evolution. It would also no credit your hypothesis in any way either.

Or that, in all the vastness of the known universe these atoms could somehow find each other to initiate the explosion. This alone, if quantified as a mathematical probability, would exceed a googleplex...a google raised to the googleth power...a number that is so big that it cannot be written by a human in an entire lifetime.

Considering no scientific theory makes any such claim, there is no problem with your claim, supported or not.

But apparently that is exactly what happened, against the laws of physics to make our universe.

Again, your ignorance is astounding and your refusal to seek authoritative sources for your wild claims is saddening.

But I believe an orderly, intelligent God created the universe only 20,000 or so years ago and I'm the nut?

Not a nut. Just an ignorant liar.

[The King]

I'm starting to believe that everybody here has a giant stick up their ass. Well...this is the political forum. Pretty much the same as the theology forum. I guess I should've known what to expect.

And you delivered splendidly just like we expected

[Hobie]

Religion - It's given hope to people in a world torn apart by Religion.

[SMEGMA STENCH]

Yeah, because the Christians have cornered morality. Headlines from today alone.

Norweigan fundamentalist Christian to stand trial for killings. Likens himself to Knights Templar in 'war' against Islam.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Christian+extremist+seeks+white+European+jihad/5153623/story.html

Christian church Brother found guilty of serial sex offences with boys in Melbourne, Australia. Protected complicity by the Catholic Church.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/christian-brother-a-sadistic-predator-20110725-1hwlv.html

Catholic church apologises for forcing young mothers to give up children for adoption.

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/catholic-church-sorry-for-forced-adoption-20110725-1hvzh.html

Irish parliament addressed on Catholic Church cover-up of child rape and torture in Cork County.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-14272988

I'm afraid that all of those are irrelevant. The thing you have to understand is, all those morons don't even understand their own religion. If you actually look at what they were taught, they're doing the exact opposite. So suffice to say, if they were actually following their religion, none of those examples would exist.

That is called Evolution. So, by your own admission, Racrguy has more evidence than Denny, as Denny has demonstrated none.


Considering the topic is evolution, and you agreed that it happens, there is nothing more that needs to be proven.



Reading his posts, he has put forward no “creation” theory.

However, given that every time throughout history, the supernatural option has been shown to be untrue, any naturalistic hypothesis is more credible and rational than a supernatural one. It would be outright irrational to bank on an option that has never been proven to be accurate in anything.

Yes. I did just state that the Raliens creation hypothesis, as I understand it, i.e. aliens created us and the biosphere for us, is more credible than the 6 day creation hypothesis, as it requires no supernatural claims.

I'm sorry but I'm just not going to reply to your original far deviating, overly long winded post. That's more time and effort than I care to put into a conversation that isn't held in person. As for evolution being the topic, it too has slightly deviated, so I'd encourage you to "keep up" with the conversation. So my point still stands. Since the topic is "evolution" or as one might more aptly put it "adaptation", and since you can submit no physical evidence of how life actually began on this planet, I'm afraid your still in the exact same boat as the creationists. As much as you probably hate that.

As for the "supernatural", I guess I'll go ahead and tell you that in "science", there is no such thing as the supernatural. Nor magic or anything of the sort. Since it can all be explained through the correct means, even a God which created the universe in some way would be considered "natural" and not supernatural. So if it exists, its natural. Something you might keep in mind.

[exlude]

Two things about your post, Stanley:

1) Evolution is not just adaptation. It is both adaptation and speciation. Speciation being the more argued topic.

2) Again, evolution does not cover abiogenesis. The theory of evolution does not need to cover abiogenesis. It's a completely separate topic.

[Maddhattter]

I'm sorry but I'm just not going to reply to your original far deviating, overly long winded post.

I won't disagree on the overly winded part. As far as far deviating, I was responding to your statements, so I don't think it was deviating.

That's more time and effort than I care to put into a conversation that isn't held in person. As for evolution being the topic, it too has slightly deviated, so I'd encourage you to "keep up" with the conversation.

It has slightly deviated, I agree. That would still mean that it's mostly about evolution, so I've not had a problem keeping up.

So my point still stands. Since the topic is "evolution" or as one might more aptly put it "adaptation", and since you can submit no physical evidence of how life actually began on this planet, I'm afraid your still in the exact same boat as the creationists. As much as you probably hate that.

So, the topic is evolution, yet I would keep up because the topic has slightly deviated from evolution? At least try to keep your story straight.

Given how evolution is defined, it would not be more aptly called adaptation because we have a word for adaptation and evolution. Those words are adaptation and evolution respectively.

As for the "supernatural", I guess I'll go ahead and tell you that in "science", there is no such thing as the supernatural. Nor magic or anything of the sort.

I agree. That doesn't mean that people don't posit supernatural hypothesis', like an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that can warp reality at it's whim. I agree, the being would be impossible to exist.

Since it can all be explained through the correct means, even a God which created the universe in some way would be considered "natural" and not supernatural. So if it exists, its natural. Something you might keep in mind.

Agreed. If it exists, it's natural. I'm fairly certain I never claimed the supernatural exists.

[Denny]

Except there is no stretch, at least not scientifically. But we do fundamentally agree that we won’t see eye to eye on this. I require testable, demonstrable, falsifiable evidence before I will believe something and…



Which I take no issues with. I’ve stated before, I don’t care what people believe. Truth claims are not about what anyone believes, it’s about what can be proven and that’s what science is all about.



Yes, we could prove that Moses got the timeline correct. Problem is you must “interpret” what he said, and assume he meant what he did not say, to prove it.



If you just arbitrarily change definitions to suit your preferred interpretation, then there is nothing to discuss. If we changed the definitions to what the word does not mean, the words could mean anything. After all, it doesn’t explicitly say that God does not mean Zeus or Bigfoot or a teapot.



Ok, so this is what you believe. There’s no evidence to back up your claim that:

1. Moses meant anything other than exactly what he said.
2. That a god/gods had any hand in the process.

Just because something isn’t excluded explicitly, doesn’t make it scientifically valid, as science requires evidence to support your claim. Again, I don’t care what you believe, it’s when you make truth claims that the problem arises. You cannot determine truth without evidence.



It doesn’t matter how many people agree with any hypothesis, yours or otherwise. What you still don’t have is a theory, at least not in the scientific sense.



This is not a boon to religion’s claims of being a universal truth.



No, they don’t. They have different hypothesis’. A scientific theory is as close to a truth as science will attest to.



I don’t. That’s the reason I address your points the way I do. But, just because you’re not a mindless drone does not mean that your arguments will not bear enough similarities with another one to have the same issues.

That is, by far, the biggest effort to beat around my post that I've EVER seen!

At what point is there anything NOT true? Again, you're automatically placing all of it on the "untrue" shel to start with.

At what point do I take anything out of context? I think I adequately addressed the reasoning for why I can see that it MIGHT not be 6 consecutive days, for argument's sake.

It is ovbious that there are MANY that don't need scientific evidence to either make or accept truth claims. The only time it poses to be a problem is with people demanding the scientific evidence. You know, like the part of my post that you skipped around?

Who said I made a scientific theory? I associated what was written with scientific claims? Are you seriously not smarter than this or is this your best attempt to sound like you're saying something intelligent without actually doing so? (BTW, I bet some people will actually be fooled by your dancing)

I love the "close to truth" shit. It give you a little out when needed. LOL

I'll just wait until someone else posts and addresses it then. Thanks for taking up some more time.

[Forever_frost]

On the topic of creationism, what I've been seeing is this: Microevolution occurs, we can witness it, yes there are links missing in our theory from a single cell to where we are, and we can't explain what started everything but YOU are the delusional ones because I believe only what is verifiable, nevermind the holes in my theories.

Oh, and comparing evolution to gravity? We have a LAW of gravity, Evolution is a theory

[exlude]

On the topic of creationism, what I've been seeing is this: Microevolution occurs, we can witness it, yes there are links missing in our theory from a single cell to where we are, and we can't explain what started everything but YOU are the delusional ones because I believe only what is verifiable, nevermind the holes in my theories.

Oh, and comparing evolution to gravity? We have a LAW of gravity, Evolution is a theory

Actually, how gravity actually works is still a theory. The law of universal gravitation has to do with how you calculate gravitational pull.

[Forever_frost]

But there is a LAW of gravity, it's not a theory.

And you guys are still dodging the point. You say evolution is proven, yet it's still a theory. You say creationism is false, but do not know from which we came. Which of us have more of a sense of faith that we know the answers?

[exlude]

But there is a LAW of gravity, it's not a theory.

And you guys are still dodging the point. You say evolution is proven, yet it's still a theory. You say creationism is false, but do not know from which we came. Which of us have more of a sense of faith that we know the answers?

You're not trackin'...

The law of gravitation is very, very basic. It, simply, says that gravity exists and gives the formula to calculate it.

The actual ins and outs of gravity is still very, very much a theory. Much like the ins and outs of evolution is still a theory. The difference being is that there isn't a fundamental part of evolution to express in a mathematical equation. That's why we have the law of gravity, due to the mathematical equation.

[Forever_frost]

And creationism says that we were created. Very very basic. God created us out of the dust of the earth, and when our bodies are reduced to the bare basics, we're dirt. The difference being is that we're not saying we know everything and we're open to science to explaining the details, you won't find a Christian that hates science, all we're saying is we know where we came from.

Something you cannot say

[exlude]

And creationism says that we were created. Very very basic.

Lmao, yeah the "basic" part is not what makes it a law. I've got a bad feeling you're trying to make that connection.

God created us out of the dust of the earth, and when our bodies are reduced to the bare basics, we're dirt. The difference being is that we're not saying we know everything and we're open to science to explaining the details, you won't find a Christian that hates science

How true is that, really, though? What about the points that "science" explains that don't fall in line with your beliefs?

all we're saying is we know where we came from.

Something you cannot say

Well, I wouldn't lie. Saying you "know" where you came from is about as far from the truth as could be. More, it's a bastardization of the word that you justify through faith.