And the debate goes on...

If a person searches long and hard enough, I'm certain that "each side" can find some information to back them up. It really comes down to a matter of choice...and faith.

I guess you could say that I was an atheist. I grew up learning about evolution with no mention of God (school or family). My own personal recovery and growth, after going through the devastation of learning about my H's A, has opened my eyes and mind just a bit. There's more going on than I realized.

I'm now appalled to learn that our kids continue to be taught outdated evolutionary theories and unproven facts in school.

I'm the kind of person that relies on facts. My job requires it. I require it. I need facts and information to function. When my personal recovery took a spiritual turn, I was confused, not sure what to do and fought it somewhat in the beginning. Since I needed facts to support this spiritual journey I had started, I began to read a countless number of books, including the bible, in my search for "proof".

I still have a lot of questions that I know I'll probably never get all of the answers to...unless the answers are revealed to me at some point.

I am now a Christian. I believe there was a divine creator. I believe the bible is accurate, and I believe there are plenty of facts to back the Old and New testaments up.

But that's my choice. And my faith.

I eagerly await the day when evolutionary scientists and creationary scientists work together instead of taking sides. Actually, it may already be happening per some of the books I've read. Imagine what we might learn!

Thanks for starting this thread Motarman. It helped to strengthen my faith.

sss

Mortarman,

I know it is time consuming to respond to many folks at once, so I applaud you for carrying this forward.

MM- What I was talking about was there are those that believe in the scientific community that there was a Big Bang, a beginning to the Universe. What I was saying is that anything that begins, has to have a cause. Thus, if the Universe began (Big Bang), it had to have a cause.

And why could this cause not have been physical laws acting on existing energy?


MM--since one of the themes of my protagonists is that I supposedly havnt cited my sources (which I have),


I didn’t claim that you haven’t cited sources, but that you haven’t cited scientific sources. As for the information presented by Baumgardner:

I am aware of Baumgardner’s work, both professional and creationist. Professionally, he is in fact somewhat in my area. However, the source of this article:

“The following article has been adapted from my contributions to an ongoing debate over origins issues in the letters to the editor section of our local newspaper”

clearly does not meet the criteria of publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and thus nothing contained within it needs to be considered further in a discussion of science.

However, to be as fair as possible, I did glance though his references. Of the 21 citied, 8 are scientifically valid: 1,2,3,8,10,17,19,21. Of these 8, only one (#3) has anything to do with the topic in question (for our discussion). And he does not use this reference to justify the portion of his calculation that I have trouble with.

First I should note that it appears that there is some formatting information lost in the article when you cut-and-pasted it; I assume that some digits here need to be superscripts, such as: 1080 (for total number of atoms in universe) means 10^80, etc. I will further assume that the base numbers presented are correct; I don’t have the inclination nor time to verify them.

Avoiding the other stuff that I also have trouble with, and just focusing on the most blaring problem, the entire calculation is based on the unfounded assumption that ‘first life’ requires a protein consisting of a chain of 200 amino acids.

Fact: existing self-replicators (and that are in fact much more complex than abiogenesis researchers believe was the actual ‘start’ of life/replication) are significantly smaller. One of many significantly smaller self-replicators is a peptide which is 32 amino acids long (Scientific reference: Severin K, Lee DH, Kennan AJ, and Ghadiri MR, A synthetic peptide ligase. Nature, 389: 706-9, 1997)

I will further (conservatively) assume that exactly this number and order of ammino acids is necessary. Of course this is not necessarily true in reality; interswitching positions often produces viable results, as Baumgardner fairly noted in his own calculation.

Using the 20 possible ammnio acid candidates number in Baumgardner’s article (which may have been lower; we don’t know. Actually this particular self-replicator only uses 12 different ammino acids; if there were in fact only 12 existing at the time, the odds would be much better), the probability of generating this 32 ammino-acid chain precisely is 1:(1/20)^32, or ~ 4.3x10^40 trials.

Although much smaller than the crazy 1:10^130 number in the article, and easily falls with in Baumgardner’s assumption of 10^110 atomic interactions (by a generous factor of 2.3x10^69), this still seems like a huge number. We can explore this model and the math further if you wish. However, I will give you the findings of those who have done such calculations that were published in scientific journals, based on possible concentrations of ammino acids in the early earth’s ocean and the number of potential molecular interactions there within.

The finding of interest is that over 1x10^30 peptide ligases such as that above could have been produced within a *single year*. Scientific references: Ferris JP, Hill AR Jr, Liu R, and Orgel LE, Synthesis of long prebiotic oligomers on mineral surfaces. Nature, 381: 59-61, 1996; Ertem G, and Ferris JP, Synthesis of RNA oligomers on heterogeneous templates. Nature, 379: 238-40, 1996; Chyba C and Sagan C, Endogenous production, exogenous delivery and impact-shock synthesis of organic molecules: an inventory for the origins of life. Nature, 355: 125-32., 1992.

The remainder of the article is similar; filled with non-scientific references and those that are valid are not used to back up the unjustified statements made. Easy to refute but time consuming to do so.

Peace,

D.

Now you're really getting close 2 home, here:

"And since you brought up toothless birds and dinosaurs...I thought I would bring up a little work I found here:

Quote:

Evolutionists have expended great effort in trying to establish that birds evolved from dinosaurs. Some skeletal similarities do exist"

I'm quite sure I don't know what this means. Of course skeletal similarities exist! ALL vertebrates share the same basic skeletal structure.

"—encouraging them to minimize the differences and to champion any possible clue (like hints of feathers in theropod dinosaurs) that the two classes might be related."

minimize the differences? That would be manipulation of the data, which is unscientific.

"Now it appears that some would even resort to fraud to establish such a lineage."

Does it? Can you be specific?

"It behooves us to step back and take a look. What structural and physiological transformations must occur to change one into the other? The following abridged list of evolutionary obstacles might be helpful.

Wings: The proposed ancestors of birds are thought to have walked on their hind legs."

As do birds. As do you and I.

"Their diminutive forelimbs had digits similar to a hand, but consisting only of digits one, two, and three. Bird forelimbs consist of digits two, three, and four."

I'm not even sure that this is true (and for the sake of argument, I won't look it up before I finish this post), but if it is, it would suggest that the unused (and perhaps now completely absent) digits went through a stage where they were vestigial (like hind limbs in whales - the bones are still there entirely inside the whale's body), then disappeared.

"Today, most hold that ground-dwelling theropods learned to run fast and jump to catch insects and eventually used arms with frayed scales to fly. But flight requires fully formed, interlocking feathers and hollow bones, not to mention the flight muscles and keeled sternum to anchor the muscles."

Indeed, this was the thinking not 2 long ago. Now it is though that flight developed from ornamentation rather than running or jumping - like Peacocks spreading their tailfeathers 2 attract mates.

"Feathers: Feathers are not at all similar to scales. Even if scales were frayed, they would not be interlocking and impervious to air as are feathers. Actually, feathers are more similar to hair follicles than scales. Could such precise design arise by mutation? In all the recent discoveries of dinosaur fossils with "feathers," the "feathers" are merely inferred. What is actually present is better described as thin filaments which originate under the skin."

Again, the idea that feathers originated as scales was the prevailing hypothesis (not theory) for over a hundred years. I don't believe that evolutionists working on the problem have ever been very satisfied with that idea. Now, of course, it is known that feathers originated as something like hair (but not from hair) that was insulation first, ornamentation next, and from there flight feathers developed.

Feathers on dinosaurs are not "inferred". They are preserved - filamentary insulation feathers, contour feathers (the feathers that shape the bird's body and make it aerodynamic), and flight feathers (including detail of the "zipper" structures that allow the filaments within a feather 2 stick together like velcro so as 2 act like a panel structure - very light and strong and good for flight.

"Bones: Birds have delicate, hollow bones to lighten their weight while dinosaurs had solid bones. The placement and design of bird bones may be analogous to those in dinosaurs, but they are actually quite different. For example, the heavy tail of dinosaurs (needed for balance on two legs) would prohibit any possible flight. And besides, the theropods were "lizard-hipped" dinosaurs, not "bird-hipped" as would be expected for bird ancestors."

I'm not certain when hollow bones first appeared in ancestral birds. Probably during the Cretaceous, if not before. Pterosaurs also had hollow bones, and probably before birds did, and yet they (and bats) are completely unrelated (at least not as closely as birds and dinosaurs). It's true that theropods are "lizard-hipped", but the way it's stated is misleading. Specifically, theropods are saurischians, meaning it was observed that their pelvis resembled that of reptiles rather than birds. This is a morphological similarity, not a genetic one, however. Archaeopteryx, the first bird ancestor discovered with fossilized feathers, had a saurischian pelvis.

"Warm blooded: Birds are warmblooded with exceptionally high metabolism and food demands. While dinosaur metabolism is in question, all modern reptiles are cold-blooded with a more lethargic life style."

Dinosaurs were almost certainly warm-blooded.

"Lungs: Birds are unique among land-dwelling vertebrates in that they don't breathe in and out. The air flows continually in a one-directional loop supporting the bird's high metabolism. Reptilian respiration is entirely different, more like that in mammals."

Huh? Sounds like they should explode, or fart all the time. I held a sick parrot once, and he most definitely was breathing. They have nostrils and stuff, 2.

"Other organs: The soft parts of birds and dinosaurs, in addition to the lungs, are totally different. A recent "mummified" dinosaur, with soft tissue fossilized, proved to be quite like a crocodile, and not at all like a bird."

I'm not aware of all the most recent finds of mummified dinosaur skin. I do remember one discovered a LONG time ago, a hadrosaur (duck-billed dinosaur, again a name derived from a morphologic similarity), that appeared 2 have had a crocodile-like skin. I'm not aware of any theropod mummies, however (other than the Chinese examples with feathers). But I might have missed them.

"Thus, the dinosaur-to-bird transition is blocked by many major obstacles, not just the acquisition of feathers. It gets even worse, for in order to make the transition, most if not all of the definitive characteristics must be acquired simultaneously. They all must be present or else none serves a valid purpose. Evolutionary stories don't fit the facts."

This discussion provides a clear example of an individual trying 2 make something look incredible in order 2 refute it. The "story" isn't complete by any means, but it's a lot further developed than it must have been when this was written.

-ol' 2long

I also would like to know why our kids are taught about the big bang in school when it is only a theory and not fact, why not show both side. Yes some Christian schools do introduce the big bang theory. But if we do not have definitive proof of the big bang or humans coming from apes then why teach that to our kids at all? On tests my kids will write the answer the teacher wants and then next to that answer they will write their answer. My daughter is constantly singled out in her history class in the ninth grade because of her beliefs. However I am grateful because it has only made her stronger in her knowledge and in her beliefs. Her history teacher is constantly making remarks about Christianity and how wrong it is. Why not just teach facts if both views are not allowed?

MM - I assume that since you replied and continue to post, then your electricity must still be on, along with the rest of North America's.

What more proof do you want?

What is your standard of proof? Preponderance of evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, or absolute-100%-everyone-will-accept-it proof? Or an individual's acceptance upon faith where biases and predisposition to only one answer figure in?

If you don't buy the lights out proof, I could go into a discussion about how controlled U235 fission relies upon the existance of delayed neutrons from daughter product decay in addition to the prompt neutrons from the U235 nucleii fission itself. It's a facinating balancing act. Without the delayed neutrons, controlled fission would be much harder to achieve and bombs much easier to make. All this relies on predictable decay rates of isotopes. The rate increases, K-eff drops below 1, the self sustaining reaction will slow down. If it increases, k-eff goes above 1, the reaction increases. Any variation in the decay rate makes the reaction unstable.

But it isn't.

Again, what standard of proof do you require? Your buddy who makes his conclusions upon this ridiculous suspicion of varying decay rates of uranium also relies on his assumption that Noah's flood inundated the entire surface of the planet. His proof for that? The Bible. Your proof of that? It's God's word.

Are your lights still on?

I could go on regarding the constancy of isotopic decay, but you'd pick up on some other statement and decry I have no proof. Planck's constant, Avogadro's number, the acceleration due to gravity, the speed of light - these are all constants in the universe that I personally cannot prove, but for which you could demand proof. Yet if I request proof of the inerrancy of the Bible, it's "God's word that requires no proof."

I cannot prove the earth is round. You cannot prove I didn't go to Mars last night, depending on the standard of proof I require. Again, what is your standard?

But, I do thank you immensely for affording me some very valuable understanding. I have a much better understanding now of the basis and motivation behind the Creation Science and Intelligent Design initiatives. I will certainly be on the lookout for indication of introduction of these concepts into the public schools that my tax dollars support. I shudder to think what is being taught as science in some home schooling environments.


I happen to agree with you on this point - but we shouldn't be confusing our kids.

It's ironic that ultimately, the very mechanism that drives evolution - natural selection/survival of the fittest will be the nail in the coffin of Creation Science and its progeny, Intelligent Design. This is exactly why, I suppose, that the scientists are staying out of the current flap in Kansas - which, by the way - is very flat.

WAT

Hey WAT, not a lot of time here to fully respond...but a couple quick points.

Alas, we also should not be confusing our kids with the evolution model either, if we arent going to confuse them with the creation model. Look, I would take just the preponderence of the evidence. I dont even need beyond a reasonable doubt. And I know neither model can provide 100% certainty. And neither creation science nor evolution has shown me a preponderence of the evidence.

On my "buddy," he does not make the argument about the flood based on the Bible. he makes his argument based on geological records, as well as other scientific findings. I will have to search somewher on my computer for what he uses as his basis for the concept of a world-wide flood. but it was not the Bible.

Again, creationists do not need the Bible to explain creation. A true creation scientist would go about his studies the same way evolutionists reportedly go about their studies. Many creation scientists have made some ascertians that were later proved false. Many evolutionists also. Some creation scientists have an agenda, and their science suffers for it. Ditto for evolutionists.

But the science of creation, not the religion of creation, is a viable study. It can be studied under the same constructs and devices as evolution, and is being done so.

We have spent a lot of time showing different views on creation science and evolution. We have on both sides showed falsehoods, or misguided conclusions. Which is why I continue to say that the subject of "Where did we come from" CANNOT be fully given to us by science, within the preponderence of the evidence.

Which for those of us that believe creation science is on the right track...and ALSO believe the Bible...get back to the central question that ForeverHers posted: Who do you say Jesus is/was? Because if Jesus is/was who He said He was, then a huge block of credence is thrown to the creation side. Because there is no doubt, by Jesus' insistence that Scripture is true, that He was/is a creationist.

So, as I said, we can continue to debunk some of these things on both sides. I actually am glad for some of the things you posted. Yes, just saying the lights will go out is not enough for me. I want to know why. Because if I know why, then I can believe you. And then I can take the statement made by this creation scientist as a false conclusion.

But at the end of it all, neither evolution nor creation science will ever "Prove" our beginnings. It requires much more than that. And just like in a court of law, we can prove something beyond a reasonable doubt without all of the cold, hard facts. There are other factors that can weigh in also. And so far, if I was on the jury, I would have to say that God created the Universe in 6 days.

One of the big reasons? Well, of course, much of the science out there leads me to believe that it is true. But again, like I said...no preponderence of the evidence.

But there is other evidence. Personal eye witnesses. In a court of law, an eye witness account is valid. As a matter of fact, because of the failures of science in the past, many times, eye witnesses are given the same or more credence than scientific fact.

Now, am I saying there were witnesses to the beginning? Well, yes there were. But in a court of law, I could not bring those witnesses in (God, Jesus, angels, Satan, etc). So, if there was a creation...and God did it...there were witnesses. Now, those witnesses, at least God...wrote down their observations in a book. Actually, they had others write the book for them as they told them what to write.

In a court of law, this is NOT admissable. It is hearsay. But now you are asying "Wait a minute MM, you are actually hurting your point here." Not exactly.

The eye witnesses I speak of are the millions and millions of people that profess a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. Who can come to the stand and give remarkably consistent testimony to who Jesus is, what He is like, and what He has done in their lives. And this testimony IS valid!!

Now, a lawyer would have to take this testimony and the scientific evidence available...and draw a conclusion for the jury. The jury would need to first make a decision on who Jesus is/was. Why? Because Jesus was reportedly an eye witness to the Creation. The beginning. And Jesus, and His Father, reportedly had authors write about it. And if Jesus is who He said He was, then His Father is who He said He was. And if they are both who they said they were/are, then the Bible is the revealed Word of God. And if the Bible is the revealed Word of God, then we now have, beyond a reasonable doubt, a conclusion that with science, and with the facts proven of who Jesus is/was...that Creation was an act of God, not some evolutionary function.

This question will take more than science. Science is incapable of answering all of the questions.

But there is a question that can be answered. And depending on that answer, it will fill in the gaps where science is lacking. That question is who is Jesus Christ? Is He a lunatic, a liar or Lord?

If He is a lunatic or a liar, the evolution is safe. And the Bible falls flat on its face. And Chritianity is a farce. But if He is the Son of God as he said He was, then the Bible account of the beginning must be true.

Now, I can have that discussion of who Jesus is. Jesus was a real historical figure. He was a man that walked the Earth. He was a man that was put to death by the Romans a little over 2000 years ago. He made proclamations while walking the Earth that He was the Son of God, the messiah. There is adequate histroical evidence for all of this. Acceptable, legal evidence.

So, this all goes back to the old lunatic-liar-Lord scenario. If He was a lunatic or liar, then we can pretty much dismiss most, if not all, of what He said. If He was the Lord, though...then we have to accept ALL of what He said, because by nature, God does not make mistakes.

Anyway, I was going to make this quick but did not. But I did want to say that the question of "Where did I come from" must be answered by more than just science, as science ahs not, and I believe cannot, get us to that preponderence of the evidence. And that is on both sides of the equation.

I believe that if on that jury, there is enough scientific, eye witness, and historical evidence to show me that beyond a reasonable doubt, God did create the Universe in 6 days. While evolution has brought some legitimate questions and concerns in that I want and need to be addressed, beyond a reasonable doubt does not mean I need 100% proof. Shoot, like I said...I would settle for the preponderence of the evidence right now. Science has yet to provide that.

In His arms.

Bottom line, MM, is this. The scientific community rejects creation science and intelligent design. They do so because the people who work in those areas refuse to play by the rules of the scientific method. Therefore, creation science and intelligent design have no place in science texts.

These people can submit their work to Nature any time they like.

GC

I think you're exactly right that if Creationism falls flat on it's face, that that invalidates the inerrancy of the Bible - among other things that already do for many others. The inerrancy. You'll have to deal with that and if that invalidates your faith, you've got a problem. There'll still be a lot of Christians in the world who are quite comfortable with that and a lot of non-christians, myself included, who will still find worth and relevancy in the Bible.

But I don't think science is worried about it.


.........or just a normal guy who happened to be very charismatic and whose wisdom was embellished after his death to counteract the influence of the Roman Gods? - born of a virgin to compete with claims that Roman rulers were the decendants of Gods?

WAT

No, the evolution science community has rejected creation science. And dont lump in Intelligent Design with creation science because ID comes from the evolution side. Creation science does not pose that there was a Big Bang.

Again, you make an absolutist statement about all scientists in creation science. If I said the same about evolution scientists, would I be correct? No. And you are not correct about all creation scientists, and all creations science.

It does not help the debat to say "I'm right, all the other guys are wrong. They never play by the rules." Especially when that isnt true. Now, can you haul out a list of names or instances where that is true? Sure. As I can with some evolution scientists and their work. But again, there are good scientists, many who used to be evolution scientists, who due to the evidence they have found, have come to the conclusion so far that the answer to the beginning is a 6 day creation. Could they be wrong? Sure. Just as wrong as the flat earthers were proven. Just as wrong as evolutionists could be proven with new evidence and/or new scientific techniques.

But, to lump every creation science and their work into "they are all a bunch of frauds" is disingeniuous and does not help the cause of either side in finding the truth.

I find much of what the creation science community is doing is good solid science and should be considered just like evolutionary findings. And, it should be presented in learning institutions as what it is...a viable model...just as viable as evolution in their current stages.

It was said above about something about kids who are homeschooled. I have many friends who home school their kids. Many others send their kids to private, Christian schools. It is interesting that the so-called closed minded Christians that actually teach both sides of the debate. My friends present evolution as outlined in current text books and learning materials. They also present creation science in a similar way. Interesting that the closed-minded Christians dont want to hide evolution from their kids.

Also interesting that these home schooled kids seem to beat the pants off of public school kids...especially in science and mathematics.

Interesting.

In His arms.

And a normal guy, who made claims of being God...is not a good man if He wasnt God. He had to be either a lunatic or a liar. Which turns the Bible into just a good book with some good parables.

Now, anyone is welcome to accept Jesus as a lunatic or a liar. That is their right, and they could be right. But what they cant say is that He was a good man, a noble man, a wise man...if He knew He wasnt God, but told us He was anyway. And He wasnt even worthy of considering if He didnt know He was God, but professed that He was anyway.

Like I said, there is enough legal evidence, to include scientific evidence, to conclude that Jesus was who He said He was. Enough for a jury to find that He was who He said He was...which means His ascertains of Creation are true.

But you are right. Just like there are still people that believe because the glove didnt fit, you must acquit and that OJ didnt kill Nicole, there will be people who will ignore the evidence that Jesus is who He said He was. Cant help that. No way to convince a closed mind.

But, the evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt that Jesus said what He said. And there is evidence, as we could go into here, that He was who He said He was. Too many want 100% certainity. They will never have that...until the day they die and face Him. Of course, if all that is known about Him is true...it will be too late then.

Again, Jesus did make those claims. Not folllowers after His death. He made them. There is historical facts to prove it, as well as eye witness accountings. Again, every lawyer should have such a plethora of evidence. They would have an open and shut case. Jesus did say He was the Son of God, the Messiah. That is a historical fact. The question is...was He...is He? If He wasnt, then He was a very sick or evil man. Kinda like Jim Jones, or David Koresh. But the evidence shows that isnt true, that He is who He said He was.

That evidence is available for anyone to see. It just requires a person to make a decision. And that is why I say, God sends no one to hell. People choose to go there. If, with all the facts on the table, a person chooses to say that Jesus was not who He said He was, then that person has chosen not to spend eternity with Jesus. If He was wrong, then this person isnt going to spend eternity with Jesus because both will be dead. But if Jesus was right, this person wont be with Jesus in eternity because he rejected Jesus and the evidence He was who He said He was.

I have not been to Hell. But the Bible does give a picture of it. Know what it says? It says that Hell is the absence of God. People will choose to be absent from God. And that place, where God isnt...will be worse than anything we know. Because of fire and burning? No. Because of a loneliness and sorrow that is unimaginable to us now. You see, even if you havent accepted Jesus, you can stil see and feel God's presence. In His creation. In interactions with His followers. With angels. He is present here.

But in Hell, there is no God...His presence does not exist there. People make little remarks like if my friends are going to Hell, I might as well hang out with them. These people do not know what they are talking about!! Those friends cannot replace the absolute loss of the presence of God. None of us know what that feels like. But the descriptions of what it must be like make me glad that I know that I will never have to know what that is like.

Those that reject Jesus choose Hell, that is if Jesus is who He said He was. A loving God would not be just, not be holy, not be loving...if He did not accept that persons choice. If He forced that person to accept jesus. but He does not. He gives all of us adequate evidence to make a legal decision. We choose. Now, we could be like the OJ jury, and ignore the evidence and dismiss Jesus. We can do that. Or we can accept Him. But we cannot remain neutral. because He says, that if you dont make a choice, then you made a choice not to accept Him.

And then you show up on your death (again, if He is who He said He was)...and Jesus looks you in the eyes and says "I never knew you." We talk about the loneliness on this web site because of the loss of our spouses. I can only imagine the loneliness all of us would face, would God not be present anymore. Literally, Hell is a place where due to loneliness, you would want to kill yourself...but you cant because you are already dead. Which is another reason why eventually, God destroys Satan and Hell. Because He is merciful. Thus, eventually, the atheists will get their way...and cease to exist.

So, after my rambling, the question still remains. Was Jesus in need of psychiatric help and some good medication? Or was He a cult leader, and evil man who lied and made claims He knew were false, in order to get people to follow Him? Or was He who He said He was?

In His arms.

You cite eye witness accounts which I am not aware of. Ought to be interesting. Where are these accounts? If they're in the Bible, that won't cut it for me because it's the Bible that is in question of being accurate in this context.

What I could find believable and easily acceptable is that he walked and talked and was probably a Wiseman to those he interacted with. And was even crucified. So were a lot of guys who crossed the Roman officials. I can also believe he may have never claimed to be the Son of God, that this was "assigned" to him later by the men who wrote it all down in their efforts to compete with the stuff they didn't want to accept from Rome.

Interesting you raised the OJ issue. The legal "truth" is that he didn't do it. The truth that many, if not most, people accept is that he did. Two truths based on two different standards. I believe you're applying two different standards to evolution and creation via what you deem evidence vs what I and others deem evidence. There are two moving parts here - the burden of proof and the sufficiency and quality of evidence. You're willing to accept speculative claims that decay rates of isotopes vary over time as evidence of high quality, but not necessarily my very well founded rebuttal - because you have a predetermined outcome you want to maintain that relies on accepting or rejecting the evidence of your choice.

WAT

Like I said, MM, get it in Nature and then we can talk about whether it belongs in a textbook.

Someone using political influence to make an end run around the scientific method does not work for me.

GC

On your decay rates rebuttal, I never said I didnt accept it. I actually am taking the time to research what you have said in order to discern that this is i nfact true. if it is, then your rebuttal holds.

On the OJ deal...legally he is guilty, except in one fact. That the jury found him not guilty. Which according to the law, makes him not guilty. You remember the Menendez brothers, the ones that killed their parents? After the trial, in which the jury basically let them off the hook, one of the jurers were asked why they did that. And that juror said that she couldnt send them away for the rest of their life because she felt sorry that they no longer had their father and mother. Huh??? What??? Look lady, they are without their father and mother because THEY KILLED THEM! A jury making a finding not due to the evidence and the law, but due to preconceived feelings and notions.

But under any semblace of rational proof, those two were guilty. Just as any semblance of proof shows OJ to be guilty. Just because one jury of people screw up, or the prosecuting attorney doesnt present the facts correctly, does not change the fact that OJ did it.

This is why I used the example. That even with proof, people still can make other decisions...for many other reasons. Thus, even if Jesus Christ came into a room today, and then left...there would be people that were in that room, that would doubt He was ever there. Is that rational? Doesnt the proof show that he was there...like the other witnesses in the room? That is why Scripture says that what God has provided (the Universe, nature, the Bible) is enough evidence. It is enough. Could He give more? Sure. And there would still be people that doubt it. Just like there are people today that doubt the Holocaust happened.

I do not use the Bible as the proof of the witnesses. The Bible does state there was 500 witnesses that saw Him after the resurrection. But guess what? There is historical proof to that, and to other things He did and said in His life. Secular accountings. Not writing by His followers. Actually, some of this evidence is from people who had a vested interest in not writing what they did, as it helped the very thing they were trying to destroy.

I will start dusting it off.Again, if there is no evidence besides the Bible that He did what is said He did, and said what He said He did....then yes, it is possible that others made up that He was the Son of God. But that isnt true. There is evidence that He said these things.
And if he did say these things, then we are left with Lord-lunatic-liar.

In His arms.

MM--And dont lump in Intelligent Design with creation science because ID comes from the evolution side.

You are misinformed. W. Dembski is the author of ID. He has degrees in psychology, theology, philsophy, and mathematics: not a single physical science degree, and he is certainly not a biologist. Moreover, he is employed by the creationist Discovery Institute (he used to be at Baylor University in Texas until he lost his job). M. Behe is another strong proponent of ID. He is actually a university professor at Lehigh. He has degrees in theology and biochemistry; also no biologist. He publicly admitted that one of the reasons that he pursued a biochem degree was to ‘destroy Darwinism.’ I can find the quote if you want to see it.

Searching the scientific literature for ID, this is what I found a few years ago:

Using the library journal search engine “Academic Search Elite,” I found a total of 46 peer-reviewed articles concerning ID. Of these 46, I eliminated non-scientific journals (i.e. journals on religion/theology, philosophy, and opinion-oriented journals. In this process, both pro-ID and pro-evolution opinion-oriented journals were eliminated). This reduced the number of articles to 11. I found only three scientific journals that contain papers concerning ID: Physics Today, Natural History, and Bioscience. Of the 11 papers, only one is pro-ID (The Challenge of Irreducible Complexity; in Natural Science; I forgot the date). This was written by M. Behe,. It is interesting to note that this article is essentially an opinion/philosophy piece; it contains no references, no scientific evidence, and is very brief. In my opinion, it was rather generous that the editors allowed it to be published at all. It was of course, quickly refuted by some of the other papers above.

Clearly, at present, according the scientific literature--the record of the scientific community-- ID is firmly in the realm of creation/pusedo ‘science’.


MM--creation science.. is doing is good solid science


Then why is none of it publishable in legitimate scientific journals?


MM--it should be presented in learning institutions as what it is...a viable model..

It may be a viable religious or philosophical model, but it is certainly not a viable scientific model. If you disagree, please define what you believe a “scientific hypothesis” is. Also please define the "scientific hypothesis of special creation or ID”

If you intend to respond to this question, before you do, I urge you to consider what I wrote in a previous post to fully understand what the term ‘scientific hypothesis’ means. Based on what you wrote so far, I would bet that it does not mean what you think it is.

MM--many who used to be evolution scientists, who due to the evidence they have found, have come to the conclusion so far that the answer to the beginning is a 6 day creation.

Really? Okay, name some and we’ll take a detailed look at this claim. And what I mean by ‘evolution scientist’ is an academic who has a record of publications in scientific journals (preferably first author) directly concerning evolution.

Peace,

D

Dimp...not ignoring you. I am actually getting ready to leave work. I will answer later this evening though!!

In His arms.

That’s okay. Take your time, I will be here.

I am always sympathetic to someone who takes on multiple opponents. I know it is time consuming and sometimes frustrating. It may be better to focus on a single issue and explore it thoroughly rather than debate about many different things on a surface level.

I came to MB a couple of years ago to better my marriage but just about all of my posts have been about these kinds of off-topic issues.

Peace,

D.

BTW, MM, between your reasearch, I'd appreciate your thoughts on this question:

Assuming ID is the answer for a moment, why are the designs so faulty?

If the creator really has all this ability and knowledge to design living creatures, why didn't he/she/it do a better job? Wouldn't you expect a really good outcome? Or are we an experiment? - improved elsewhere in the universe?

For example - what the heck is that tail bone for?

Why don't most of us have room for those wisdom teeth?

Why am I going bald?

Why is our eye sight so poor? - and so prone to going bad ata young age?

Why did my son get cancer and die?

Why design mammals that live in water (and breathe air)?

Why do whales have finger bones inside solid flippers?

Were the dinosaurs deemed faulty and killed off?

You get the gist.

I cannot see much design intelligence in these results.

WAT

D:

I'd love 2 hear your story on a new thread, if you don't mind telling it again. I don't remember you. Did you have a different name then?

MM, I was intrigued when you brought up the OJ verdict this morning (or was it last night?). I was thinking about talking about that very subject as an example of the different ways the legal process must seek truth, due 2 the "right 2 a speedy trial" and the need 2 protect individuals from being prosecuted multiple times for the same crime, versus the fact that, as Carl Sagan so eloquently said in "Cosmos": "In science, the only sacred truth is that there are no sacred truths." Literally, that is 2 say that theories like those 2 explain the observations regarding evolution, could be refuted at any time in the fu2re. Nobody is "protected" from having their pet hypotheses raked over the coals at any time, and so the best scientists are the ones who invest the least of their personal well-being in their work. Science is exciting 2 scientists (and kids, 2!) because there will always be fascinating puzzles 2 solve, and the freshest minds are often the best qualified 2 take a whack at solving them.

Children are na2ural-born scientists, until we beat their curiosity and their innate tendency 2 always ask why? in2 submission in our educational (and religious) insti2tions - either deliberately or subconsciously - by telling them they don't know anything we don't tell them.

Thomas was my favorite disciple.

I agree with WAT that we shouldn't confuse our kids by pitting science against creationism in our schools. Science classes should first and foremost be about teaching kids how 2 employ the scientific method, not listen 2 debates about "baseball versus football" (though creationism/evolution WOULD be appropriate in a social studies class - think about it, those of you who want creationism discussed in schools).

You mentioned Fred Hoyle a while back, I think while giving an example of a naysayer about the Big Bang theory. It's true, Hoyle wasn't a fan of the Big Bang. It didn't seem "right" 2 him. So he kept working and reworking his "Steady State" theory, invoking the creation of matter out of nothing 2 fill the void created by the expansion of the universe. It never "flew", but he died with his theories largely intact (in his own mind, that is).

The Big Bang theory is relatively new, and it's going rapid "evolution" with time, but it does explain a number of important, though puzzling, observations that have been made (the first to come to mind, of course, is the 3 degree Kelvin background radiation everywhere throughout the sky). I personally find the idea of a Big Bang being the start of life, the universe, and everything (hence, 42) 2 seem somewhat unsatisfying somehow, but I do try 2 remember that my personal feelings about it have nothing 2 do with whether it's accurate or not. In all probability, though, major new concepts will continue 2 come from the investigators working on the problem (concepts like "dark energy" come 2 mind - Wow, Cool!).

Anyway...

-ol' 2long

Yes and why do these children have to suffer so with illness... and why do the children who get kidnapped/tortured/murdered have to suffer so... and the children who suffer abuse, and hunger and war??????????

Surely God could intervene in the cases of children.

And why would any one want to worship a God who is all knowing, all powerful... and still He lets these atrocities go on without intervening?

Don't answer that MM, I know you can't, and I don't want to hear it anyway.

I just hope to God there is a special place for these babies, where they live in eternal happiness with no memories of their suffering.

Maybe that is why everyone wants to believe so bad, because the alternative - that THAT suffering was all there was for them is so unimaginable for us who are left behind.

2long,

Thanks for the interest. I don’t have much of a story—certainly not one that deserves its own thread. There were no large negative events in my marriage. I came here about two years ago to improve some of the things that most guys want better in their relationship. I used some of the MB ideas with some success. Really opened my eyes about our susceptibility to affairs and the resulting damage. I lurked for a while, and occasionally posted for about a year under dimpsasawa (didn’t survive the move to the new board). After reading some of the issues that many folks here deal with, I felt uncomfortable posting about my relatively minor problems, or offering advice as I have little experience in these matters, so I guess I stuck mostly to threads in EN like this one. I had a number of good discussions with Thornedrose and ZeusPetals. I also remember arguing extensively with a poster called Sufdub or something similar who vanished a while ago. Religiously, I would call myself a nominal Catholic. I used to have much more faith than I do now. As an adult I could never accept religion from a rational perspective, but I still had a reasonably strong faith in God. Interestingly it was when we regularly started to attend a bible study group a few years back that my faith began to erode. I learned many things about my faith which I thought were very negative. I’m not completely certain what I believe right now. I’m no doubt a bad influence on my wife from a religious perspective; she takes her faith much more seriously than I do. That’s about it.

I would also strongly resist an attempt to get creationism/ID taught in a science class. The only reason for this is because it's (at least to date) simply not science. As you, I would have no trouble with it being explored fairly in another class such as history, sociology; we even had an elective class in my HS called ‘current issues’.

D