7/26/2005 - Evolution: The Case of the Exploding Bugs!
Call me crazy, but I believe evolution is a poor explanation for the origin of life. Evolution says nothing became something which exploded and became everything...all by itself. Nobody knows for sure how it happened, just that it took a very long time.
To me that kind of thinking requires more faith than Christianity. Look at any building. The buidling itself is absolute proof there was a builder. Similiarly, a painting is absolute proof there was a painter. That's science in a nutshell--look at the evidence and draw the most likely conclusion. When you think about the incredible complexity of nature, it seems *scientific* to conclude there was an intelligent Designer (God).
Anyway, I came across this fascinating video clip from a series called "Creatures that Defy Evolution". These little bomb-throwing bugs are truly an incredible feat of nature. There's just no way they could have evolved. This clip is pretty amazing. Check it out!
|
|
|
7/27/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by KirkGuy |
I agree, Cedric.
I always ask, if evolution requires mutation for species to change from one to another, why then is it that mutations that we observe in nature are weeker geneticlly and sterile. Mutation does not work with survival of the fitest.
Why would we evolve to not have claws and fur. It would seem that those would be useful features for survival.
I like your sketches above. I saw you are engaged, congrats. My wife and me are on year 14.
God bless,
Kirk |
| Permanent Link |
7/28/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by Anonymous |
Just wondering if you ever got around to reading the real science behind the bombadier beetle? http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/bombardier.html
Luke |
| Permanent Link |
7/28/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by cedricstudio |
Thanks for the link, Luke. I appreciate your pointing out that some Creationist literature on the Bombardier Beetle is erroneous. But my point still stands: the beetle, like so much of Creation, is so incredibly complex that the most probable explanation is a Designer (God).
The link you posted tries to explain how the beetle could have "evolved", but the scenario seems so unlikely as to be rediculous. For the evolutionist, notice all the things that must conveniently "develop" and "appear" as if by magic, with no explanation as to how or why:
"Small invaginations DEVELOP in the epidermis...Muscles are MOVED AROUND slightly...different defensive chemicals besides quinones APPEAR...Cells that secrete the hydroquinones DEVELOP...The channels BECOME a duct...Muscles ADAPT which close off the reservior [Wouldn't this have to happen at the same time?]...Hydrogen peroxide, which is a common by-product of cellular metabolism, BECOMES mixed with the hydroquinones...Cells secreting a small amount of catalases and peroxidases APPEAR...the walls toughen and SHAPE INTO a reaction chamber [How?]...The tip of the beetle's abdomen BECOMES somewhat elongated and more flexible...
It is insulting to people's intelligence to say that complex things develop all on their own as if by magic. Buildings don't build themselves, paintings don't paint themselves, and the creation didn't create itself. With all due respect, evolution is wishful thinking at best and denial at worst. |
| Permanent Link |
7/29/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by Anonymous |
Personally, I find both the idea that God created life and idea that life evolved from raw elements to be equally "crazy". The difference is, one of the ideas is backed up by hard cold evidence and one is to be believed based only on faith.
I think the reason you find the explanation for the bombadier beetle's evolution to be improbable is that you don't have a firm grasp on the amount of time over which these things occure. Take dogs for example. Men have been selectively breeding dogs for the last 10,000 years. In that time dogs have gone from wolf-like to such far extremes as chihuahuas, poodles, bulldogs, and hundreds of other varitations. Now let's say a bombadier beetle took 30 million years to evolve into it's present form. That's 3,000 times longer than the time it took a wolf to turn into a chihuahua (with human aid).
Now, the website listed 15 mutations required to make the bombadier beetle what it is today (and remember the mutations don't have to be in the order they're listed on the site.) 15 mutations in 30 million years....that's about 1 mutation every 2 million years. Now, does that seem ridiculous or improbable?
The idea of evolution does not only make logical sense, but it's also very probable by the numbers. Not only that, but it's backed with evidence. When you dig into the earth, the fossils you will find will become less and less complex the deeper you dig (or further back in time you go). How does Christianity explain that?
Your simple analogies of buildings having builders and paintings having painters simply don't apply to the issue of the creation of life. It's apples and oranges (another bad analogy).
I do enjoy these discussions with you. Although, I know you can't read my comments with an open mind, as you're very deeply entrenched in your own religion. Yet, calling scientific explaination "magic" and "denial" is a little strange, in my opinion. Those are words I'd reserve for religion. :-)
Luke |
| Permanent Link |
7/29/2005 - Respnose |
| Posted by |
Ah, the magic bullet of "time". Evolution teaches that anything can happen if given enough time. If a frog turns into a prince instantaneously, it's called a fairly tale. If it takes billions of years, it's called science.
Your analogy of dog species is valid, but notice they are all still dogs. When changes take place within a species, it's called micro-evolution, and there is overwhelming evidence that micro-evolution takes place. But to say fish turn into birds that turn into dogs (or anything outside the species) is called macro-evolution, and if you want to talk about evidence there is none. The fossil record contains no "missing links" between species. Every fossil is always fully formed within it's own species. The leap from micro-evolution to macro-evolution is taken purely on faith.
Besides, the passage of time does not guarantee that things get more complex and sophisticated. The second law of thermodynamics says just the opposite. If I drop 500 one-dollar bills off the roof of my house, the chances are extremely low that they will land in a pattern that spells the word "money". Now suppose I drop them from an airplane. They have a much longer time to fall, so according to evolution the odds of them spelling "money" would increase. But the reality is just the opposite. The wind would scatter them in every direction. Time always causes things to degrade, not improve....unless they are guided by a higher intelligence.
As for the fossil record, I believe the flood of Noah would generally explain it. A world-wide flood is a perfect way to get fossils (creatures die and are immediately burried in mudslides, strata shfts and erupts under the tremendous water pressure, etc.) The more complex creatures would make it to higher ground before drowning, giving the illusion that the fossil record becomes more complex. This would also explain the "Cambrian Explosion" in the fossil record, when millions of fully-formed fossil species suddenly appear. And almost every ancient culture around the world has a Noah-type legend, which is strong *evidence* that it occurred. In fact, archeology supports the Bible time and time again. There is ample evidence that the Bible is trustrworthy from a historical perspective.
Finally, you say my buildings and paintings analogies are apples and oranges, but you don't explain why. Hopefully I've explained why micro-evolution and macro-evolution are apples and oranges.
I'm extremely busy so I may not post any more replies for a while, but thanks for the dialogue. Please consider what I am saying. I genuinely care for your soul and would love nothing more than to convince you there is a God who loves you and sent His Son to die for your sins. Cheers!
Edited by cedricstudio on 7/29/2005 at 4:52 AM |
| Permanent Link |
7/29/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by KirkGuy |
Hello Cedric and Luke,
That is a good response Cedric. Evolution violates many of Science’s own laws. Things tend tword greater disorder - 2nd Law of Theromodynamics. The first law (of Theromodynamics) states that energy can’t be created or destroyed, so how can something come from nothing.
My wife has a Biology degree. Through college, she would say how interesting it was that professors would teach Evolution as though it is a fact. Which it can not be. In order for any science to be taught as a fact (Law), it has to be observable and reproducable in a lab. This is what Science says has to happen before a theory can become a Law. Scientist have yet to recreate the big bang or make something out of nothing in a lab. In fact, many Evolution scientists are abandoning the big bang theory for other theorys. The ideal that evolution takes place over a long peroid of time is another theory that evolutionists are abandoning. They now say that evolution happens in quick burst of change seperated by long times of no change. There is also evidence in the Earth that do not support the ideal that the Earth has been around for millions of years.
Science is just not equiped to deal with the creation of the Earth and life. Most of the evidence for Evolution has been proven false or is being changed from year to year to try and compensate for holes in the positions. Creation is not the end all be all of the answers, but neither is Evolution. Evolution requires more faith to believe in. |
| Permanent Link |
7/30/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by Anonymous |
Cedric, I think you may be reading too much creationist propaganda and not enough real science. I have responded to some of your statements below and I hope you get around to reading them sometime, even though you're busy. It's good to be busy, though.
“Besides, the passage of time does not guarantee that things get more complex and sophisticated. The second law of thermodynamics says just the opposite.” -Cedric
The creationists have misinterpreted the second law of thermodynamics to mean that order can not spontaneously arise from disorder. This is completely untrue (though explaining how the second law of thermodynamics actually works would take considerable time….I suggest you look it up.) However, as you provided your “money falling out of a plane” analogy as an example of how disorder always increases, I will provide examples of order coming from disorder…. snowflakes with their six-sided crystalline symmetry are formed spontaneously from randomly moving water vapor molecules. Salts with precise planes of crystalline symmetry form spontaneously when water evaporates from a solution. Seeds sprout into flowering plants and eggs develop into chicks. If the second law of thermodynamics works how you say it does, than how do these examples happen? Obviously it doesn’t work the way you say it does, eh?
“Your analogy of dog species is valid, but notice they are all still dogs. When changes take place within a species, it's called micro-evolution, and there is overwhelming evidence that micro-evolution takes place. But to say fish turn into birds that turn into dogs (or anything outside the species) is called macro-evolution, and if you want to talk about evidence there is none. The fossil record contains no "missing links" between species.” -Cedric
I know the difference between micro and macro evolution. I was just using the dramatic micro-evolution of dogs over the last 10,000 years to demonstrate a point of how much things can change in a relatively short period of time. A wolf turning into a Chihuahua over night would indeed be called “magic”. Yet, a wolf turning into a Chihuahua over 10,000 years is “science”, right? So why scoff at the idea of a lizard turning into a bird over several hundred million years?
Your statement that the fossil record contain no evidence of a missing link is just plain wrong. There are plenty of examples of “missing links”. The creationists are clever about denying them, I know….but the examples are plentiful. One example of many is the Archaeopteryx (or feathered dinosaur) that is considered the key link between dinosaurs and birds. Below it, on the evolutionary tree, stretch countless theropod dinosaurs that become ever more birdlike through time, and above it stretch numerous bird species that bridge every step of the way from Archaeopteryx to fully-fledged birds. A long series of fossils through the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods, a span of 140 million years, document the evolutionary transition from reptile to bird. I know that creationists still reject the idea of the Archaeopteryx being a missing link, and see it as only an odd looking bird. Yet, in recent days more Archaeopteryx fossils have been found, as well as close relatives, which make the case for it’s evolution even tighter.
Aside from dinosaurs with feathers, there are also whales with legs. There’s excellent step-by-step fossil documentation of the transition of the complex reptilian jaw, with five separate bones, to the mammalian jaw, with only one bone. There’s also the numerous humanoid fossils which provide a clear path from ape-like to modern man. I know creationists refute all of this overwhelming fossil evidence, and have an excuse for every new fossil found. If you choose to believe them, I can’t argue with you… but I think you will find it more and more difficult as more and more fossils are found.
Yet, fossils aren’t the only thing that provide proof for evolution. There’s also “the great tree of life” that shows how all animals are related. Plants and animals in the long isolated South America are all more closely related to each other than they are to plants and animals in Europe. This clearly indicates that life evolved, and was not created species by species by God. If God created all life, then He must have purposefully made animals that live together look like they evolved from one another. A strange thing to do, eh?
It’s not only a matter of physical appearances, however. You can see how closely related one animal is to another in it’s DNA. Simply put, the degree of difference between the same proteins (or the DNA or RNA) in different species is proportional to the time since they split apart on the evolutionary tree. So, humans have molecules that are nearly identical to those of chimpanzees, rather more different from those of cows, and very different from those of slime molds. Is this another trick by God to make it look like animals evolved from one another?
“As for the fossil record, I believe the flood of Noah would generally explain it.” –Cedric
That’s called the “hydrological sorting” theory. Creationists have always had problems accounting for the fossil record and have had to resort to such imaginative rationalizations as hydrological sorting, which I find almost as crazy as the “apparent time” theory. Hydrological sorting says that the fossil record is a result of larger animals sinking and smaller animals floating in the great flood…..as well as more agile and smarter animals making it to higher ground while slower and dumber animals died on low ground when the flood came. The theory is amateurish at best and only a little bit of research will show how it simply does not apply to the actual fossil record. The lower strata is abound in delicate, floating creatures, as well as spherical globs. Many oceanic creatures -- whales and fish in particular -- appear only in upper strata, well above hordes of terrestrial forms. Clumsy sloths (not to mention hundreds of species of marine invertebrates) are restricted to strata lying well above others that serve as exclusive homes for scores of tiny and nimble small dinosaurs and pterosaurs. On the other hand, NO trilobite lies in the upper strata because they all perished 225 million years ago. NO man keeps company with a dinosaur, because we were still 60 million years in the future when the last dinosaur perished. The theory is complete garbage, and probably one of the creationists’ all time worst.
HellboyOne (Rick Cortes) stated on the drawingboard, “and, really, Christians need to stop constantly looking for clues that the Bible is accurate...if you believe in it, just believe in it....stop trying to convince the world or, more accurately perhaps, yourselves” I agree with him and suggest you check out "Christianity and the Age of the Earth," by geologist and evangelical Christian Davis Young. Young shows clearly and forcefully why creation science is actually harmful to Christianity, as its nonsensical and pathetic science is more apt to turn away potential believers than recruit them. It’s a good read.
Thanks for reading,
Luke
|
| Permanent Link |
7/30/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by KirkGuy |
Luke,
It is interesting how you ignore the points I have made.
The laws of Thermodynamics are pretty straight forward. I have seen on the web scientists doing back flips to try and reword the laws to accomidate their postions.
Snow flakes and salts are a weak argument in comparision all of the other things in nature that do not tend tword order. It still does not address the first law of Thermodynamics where energy can not be created or destroyed. So how did something come from nothing?
The Archaeopteryx is not a missing link. Just another species. There are no links from the Archaeopteryx to anything else. Infact, most of the supposed links have been found to be false. The fossiles showing the evolution of horses was proven false in the 40s. The famous Lucy skeleton was proven false.
So some creationist theorys may not hold up. They are at least putting them forward as theorys. Evolutionists are dishonest when they place forward theorys and claim them as fact. Their creadiblity is even further tarnished when they change their theorys to something different and claim them as fact. Science can not claim anything as fact in terms of creation. The creation of the world is outside the realm of the scientic process.
It still remains. Evolution claims mutations as the means of one species changing to another. But mutations are bad. They are almost alwasy sterial and inferior.
The debate really is a religous one between Christions and Secularists. Christians see humans as unique, Secularist see humans no different then animals. Thus, humans can be treated as animals and animals can be treated as humans. This is messed up.
Kirk |
| Permanent Link |
7/30/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by Anonymous |
Kirk, sorry I ignored some of your comments. It’s difficult enough trying to stay on topic and make a point with one person, let alone two. But alas, here are my replies to your comments….
“The laws of Thermodynamics are pretty straight forward. I have seen on the web scientists doing back flips to try and reword the laws to accomidate their postions.
Snow flakes and salts are a weak argument in comparision all of the other things in nature that do not tend tword order. It still does not address the first law of Thermodynamics where energy can not be created or destroyed. So how did something come from nothing?” -Kirk
I will try to explain better how creationists misinterpret the first and second laws of thermodynamics. The first law states that no new energy can enter a system, and the second law states that a system will always move from order to disorder. However, creationists neglect the fact that the earth is not a closed system; it is a sub-system of the entire universe. The second law states that when energy leaves sub-system (A) and flows into sub-system (B), disorder will increase in sub-system (A) yet order will increase in sub-system (B). When you apply this to our solar system, the sun is sub-system (A) and the earth is sub-system (B). The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things and allow things to grow in complexity on earth. Order from disorder is common in nonliving systems, too. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, hurricanes, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order.
The first law is misinterpreted by creationists in the same way. It states that no new energy can enter into a “closed system”. Again, the earth is not a closed system, it is only a very tiny sub-system. When new energy appears on earth in the form of life, it may seem to have come from nowhere, yet it is actually coming from the sun. No new energy is being created; it is only being transferred from one system to another.
Does that make sense to you?
“The Archaeopteryx is not a missing link. Just another species. There are no links from the Archaeopteryx to anything else. Infact, most of the supposed links have been found to be false. The fossiles showing the evolution of horses was proven false in the 40s. The famous Lucy skeleton was proven false.” -Kirk
As for Lucy being a hoax….it’s a common creationist claim that Donald Johanson found the knee joint of Lucy in a location much lower in the strata and several miles away from the rest of the find. The claim is used by creationists to show that (a) evolutionists are dishonest and (b) Lucy did not walk upright. The claim is clearly shown to be false in Johanson's published writings about Lucy, and it has been pointed out repeatedly to its proponents that it was simply a case of the creationists misinterpreting a statement Donald Johanson made at a public speech. Despite this, only three of eighteen creationists making the claim have publicly retracted it. Thus, it is continually published in many creationist websites and books.
As for the Archaeopteryx not being a missing link….This is partially true, because the term "missing link" is outdated (even though I still use it  ). The term “missing link” does not accurately reflect the way biologists and paleontologists think about fossils today. Scientists prefer not to talk about "missing links" or "intermediate forms," but rather “intermediate features”. The Archaeopteryx has features intermediate between those of living birds and ancient reptiles; along with many other fossils, it preserves ancestral features while it shows descendant novelties. It had bird characteristics, feathers and wings….Yet, it also had reptilian characteristics, the skeleton of a small theropod (flesh-eating) dinosaur, with a long bony tail, fingers with claws on the leading edge of the wing, and teeth in the jaws. When creationists see these types of fossils they say, “Well, that’s only a bird with dinosaur teeth and claws.” Or “That’s only a dinosaur with feathers.” Creationists are blatantly ignoring the fact that these are transitional features they are looking at. Scientists are not completely certain that modern birds are the direct descendant of the Archaeopteryx. However, it can not be denied that the Archaeopteryx shares a mixture of reptile and bird characteristics, which is exactly the type of thing scientists expect to find when researching the theory of evolution.
As for horses…..I’m not sure what you’re referencing when you claim that the evolution of the horse was proven false in the 1940s. Maybe you’re referring to the creationist claim that the hyracotherium (the earliest type of horse) is actually not a horse, but a type of animal called a hyrax (a group of animals that are alive today and are not horses.) These claims are scoffed at by most paleontologists, because you can clearly see the differences between the two animals’ skull shapes and sizes. Creationists also claim that evolutionists now say that the hyracotherium is not related to modern horses, but to modern rabbits. This is not true either, but it’s funny that we have creationists who claim Hyracotherium is a rabbit on one hand and a hyrax on another! The truth is, scientists have a very clear range of horse fossils that show a beautiful line of evolution. Without evolution, how else can you explain the sequence of horse fossils? Did God create each species coincidentally similar to the species that came just before and came just after?
“It still remains. Evolution claims mutations as the means of one species changing to another. But mutations are bad. They are almost alwasy sterial and inferior.”-Kirk
Positive mutations happen very infrequently. If they were more common, then evolution would not take millions and billions of years to happen. We have only witnessed negative mutations occurring because they are much more frequent. Evolution is a random process with no set goal, thus pointless or bad mutation will obviously occur more frequently than the chance positive mutation. We observe a very small slice of time. Recorded history only accounts for a few thousands years (a mere fraction of time compared to the time life has existed on earth.) Yet, just because we don’t see positive mutations happening in front of our faces doesn’t mean we don’t have evidence that they do indeed happen. If science was restricted to theories that could only be tested in laboratories, then we would know next to nothing about the universe. We know what gasses the sun is made of, yet we have never created a sun in a science lab. We know that Pluto is 4 billion miles away from the sun, yet we haven’t dragged a tape measurer there. It seems funny to me that Christians, who believe blindly in an invisible God, are always asking for visible proof for scientific theories. Science uses comparative analysis to understand things that can not be tested directly. I can give many examples of evidence for positive mutations occurring, if need be…..Darwin’s finches of the Galapagos is the most famous, of course.
“The debate really is a religous one between Christions and Secularists. Christians see humans as unique, Secularist see humans no different then animals. Thus, humans can be treated as animals and animals can be treated as humans. This is messed up.”-Kirk
Ah, that old claim that secularism can only lead to humans treating each other as lowly animals, and the anarchy ensues! Need I remind you that some of the most atrocious acts performed on other humans were done in the name of the Almighty and by members of the church? From the witch hunts to the inquisition to the crusades to countless other violent acts, now THAT’S messed up! Sure, secularists have done their fair share of terrible things too. The fact is, some humans are violent no matter what they are, religious or secular. To counter your claim about the secularist view of humanity, it can also be argued that Christianity promotes the idea that you are part of God’s chosen few, and the rest of humanity is worthless and must be converted or killed. I don’t think most Christians see it that way, and I hope you don’t think that most secularists think that humans should be treated as animals. That’s just plain silly, man.
Luke
|
| Permanent Link |
8/2/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by KirkGuy |
Luke,
Thanks, for your response. You certainly know some stuff and can write it out well. I thinks this debate is good and the going back and forth on theories is a good thing both for religion and science. I don’t think we will be able to find common ground, at least not in a back and forth of postings. If I could make a couple of short notes from my perspective.
The sub set systems is an interesting argument, but it seems to me to be nitpicking a point to try and make something work. Ok, the earth is a subsystem. But the universe is a closed system and I thought we were talking about the creation of the universe. I thought the Lucy remains was proven false because the jaw bone was later proven false. Then to change the semantics about missing links and say they have certain characteristics that could lead form one species to another, that sounds like selective adaptation. I don’t thinks that proves Evolution.
>>If science was restricted to theories that could only be tested in laboratories, then we would know next to nothing about the universe. -Luke
Yes, that is true, but for something to become a fact or a law, to be true, it need to be reproducible in a lab to be true or a Law. That is the scientific process, something set up by science to take theories (Which are educated guesses) to a Law (True till proven wrong). That is all I am complaining about and many creationists. Evolutionists want to have exclusivity on ideals and then take their ideals and claim them to be true, fact and unrefutable when all they are are theories. This is were the argument is. It is not healthy for science and education to fixate on one version or possibility over others. Especially when that one version has some shaky ground in places.
Christians and/or people perpetrating atrocities on others in the name of God, this is wrong and truly brakes my heart. I believe God has the most harsh judgment reserved for these. Now secularism is not the root of all evils, but separation from God is the root of all evils for secularists and the religious. Secularism relies on man’s goodness to accomplish good in the world. Christianity (when true to itself) relies on God’s standards to establish good (Example: Ten commandants). As you say, Christians and secularists both perform atrocities and are messed up. I agree. Human-kind tries to fix itself and explain the world to itself while discounting God, but it has not been working too well. The only answer is to repent of denying God and submit to His saving grace (I am not talking about becoming another church member, but a personal relationship - one on one).
>…it can also be argued that Christianity promotes the idea that you are part of God’s chosen few, and the rest of humanity is worthless and must be converted or killed. - Luke
No, it can not be argued. You can claim it, but that does not make it true. Christianity promotes that ALL have sinned and are separated from God. That all must repent and submit to God and work to apply His principles in our life. Christianity says to love your enemies and pray for them. Christianity says to turn the other cheek when slapped. Christianity says to witness to the fact of God’s glory and goodness so all can benefit from salvation, not just a select few. God desires that all be saved. This is all in the Bible. I think you were thinking of Jehad when you said what you said. Christianity teaches that it is better to die witnessing to others then to ever kill anyone, and many have died witnessing to God’s goodness.
Thanks for your openness and God Bless,
Kirk |
| Permanent Link |
8/2/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by Anonymous |
“I thinks this debate is good and the going back and forth on theories is a good thing both for religion and science. I don’t think we will be able to find common ground, at least not in a back and forth of postings.” Kirk
I agree. The chances of one of us convincing or “converting” the other are extremely slim. My intention is just to enlighten you to my side of the argument. Creationist propaganda literature is filled with known fallacies that you and Cedric seem to have become slightly accustomed to repeating. If I’ve enlightened you about even one of these fallacies or at least raised your awareness of what I consider “true science”, then I’ll feel content. These arguments are good exercises, though. They usually sharpen the knowledge of both parties involved. I know I’ve written a lot, but I hope you take the time to read it all, as I’ve taken the time to respond to your points. What would Jesus do?
----------------------------------------------------------
“The sub set systems is an interesting argument, but it seems to me to be nitpicking a point to try and make something work.” -Kirk
The idea of sub-systems and closed systems are intrinsic parts of the laws of thermodynamics. It’s not “nitpicking a point to try and make something work”, it’s just the way the law is written. In fact, creationists that omit the fact that the earth is a sub-system are the ones who are “nitpicking” or “changing” the law to make it work for them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
“Ok, the earth is a subsystem. But the universe is a closed system and I thought we were talking about the creation of the universe.”-Kirk
No, we were talking about evolution, remember? When you brought up the laws of thermodynamics you said, “Evolution violates many of Science’s own laws. Things tend tword greater disorder - 2nd Law of Theromodynamics.” I just showed you how creationists are mistaken in believing this.
However, if you want to talk about the creation of the universe…. the laws of thermodynamics do not contradict with any of the theories scientists currently hold about that either. Today there are a number of “universe creation” theories, most of which are variation on the Big Bang theory, and none of which are accepted by everyone.
The Big Bang theory does not contradict the 1st law, because it does not state that new energy was created or that “the universe came from nothing”. According to the theory, the universe existed as a singularity (a very tiny condensed particle of matter) at the beginning of time. Since the universe existed at the beginning of time with all of its matter and energy, then you can not say it “came from nothing”. As physicist Stephen Hawking writes: “to talk about causation or creation implicitly assumes there was a time before the big bang singularity. We have known for twenty-five years that Einstein's general theory of relativity predicts that time must have had a beginning in a singularity fifteen billion years ago.”
The Big Bang theory isn’t in conflict with the 2nd law either. The Big Bang was not a disordered "explosion", but the smooth expansion of spacetime and almost perfectly uniform distribution of matter. Ultimately, very tiny irregularities grew and the universe actually because less and less ordered. Even the formations of systems like galaxies and solar systems (which are examples of order) actually increase the over-all disorder of the universe, because they form by dissipating gravitational and kinetic energy.
I know that’s a lot to grasp for someone who isn’t very familiar with the subject. But, I supposed that’s why so many creationists misinterpret the first and second laws of thermodynamics.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Then to change the semantics about missing links and say they have certain characteristics that could lead form one species to another, that sounds like selective adaptation.” –Kirk
The idea of animals with “intermediate features” is not the same thing as “selective adaptation”. The fossil record shows a line of dinosaurs gaining more and more bird features, and then full-fledged birds with less and less dinosaur features. If you were to animate the line of fossils, it would show a dinosaur morphing into a bird. Thus, evolution.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“Yes, that is true, but for something to become a fact or a law, to be true, it need to be reproducible in a lab to be true or a Law. That is the scientific process, something set up by science to take theories (Which are educated guesses) to a Law (True till proven wrong). That is all I am complaining about and many creationists. Evolutionists want to have exclusivity on ideals and then take their ideals and claim them to be true, fact and unrefutable when all they are are theories.” –Kirk
Ok, let me try and explain a few things about how evolution is taught.
First of all, no scientist is teaching the “law of evolution”. It is called the “theory of evolution”. Yet, the word “theory” needs some explaining. The word "theory" doesn't just mean "what some person thinks"; the word is generally used in science to mean a powerful, rigorous framework that is based on a large body of evidence, has made many predictions that have been verified, and has withstood vigorous and skeptical examination. Evolution is a "theory" in the same sense as Newton's "theory" of gravity and Einstein's "theory" of relativity.
Second, the word "theory" implies that it is not the final word and is subject to revision. To many people this implies that a "theory" is not trustworthy, since it is not known to be definitely true and can change at any time. Yet, this is the nature of science. Unlike religion, science only seeks provisional truth, not absolute truth. A good scientist is not foolish enough to think he knows everything about everything. However, this does not make science “untrustworthy”. Remember, that a theory is based on tons of evidence. Once a school of thought has climbed to the level of "theoryhood," it is unlikely to be overturned completely. What usually happens is the theory is subject to revisions. This revision process happens to all sorts of theories that are generally accepted today.
Third, many people feel that the theory of evolution can never be firmly established because it describes so many events that no human has seen. All public-school biology textbooks in Alabama must have a disclaimer pasted in the front that reads in part, "No one was present when life first appeared on earth. Therefore, any statement about life's origins should be considered as theory, not fact." However, vast portions of modern science deal with phenomena that are not directly accessible to the senses. Atoms are invisible, but we accept their existence as a matter of course. Nobody has ever been more than a mile below the earth's crust, but we know quite a bit about the earth's interior. Should we put disclaimers about those and dozens of other theories on the front of the science book too? There would be so many disclaimers that we would need a “disclaimer book” to go with every science book.
Finally, scientists simply don’t teach other alternative theories for the creation of life because there are none that are better or equal to the theory of evolution. Creationism has failed again and again, sometimes embarrassingly, when held up to the rigors of actual science. The best creationists can do is point out the weak points in the theory of evolution. Yet, as stated above, theories are supposed to have weak points that are subject to revision. The overall theory of evolution is extremely strong, however. It’s fine to believe that God created life and the universe exactly as the bible says, yet it simply is not a science. There is very little sound observation or analysis that has pointed toward creationism. I have a little analogy for “real science vs. creation science” that I’d like to end this thought with….it goes like this:
-A good scientist is like a detective who enters a murder scene with no preconceived notions of what happened there. The detective analyzes the evidence and makes a conclusion based on what he finds at the crime scene.
On the other hand:
-A good creationist is like a detective who enters a murder scene already knowing who killed the victim, as well as how and why the victim was killed, because God told him. The detective then observes the evidence and makes it meet his preconceived idea of what happened there.
The second is simply not science…..it is knowing God (or claiming to, at least). Therefore is has no place in science books. So let’s keep it in the Sunday school books.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“Secularism relies on man’s goodness to accomplish good in the world. Christianity (when true to itself) relies on God’s standards to establish good (Example: Ten commandants).” -Kirk
That’s true. Both secularist and Christians have moral codes. The only difference is, the secular moral code is man’s invention, and the Christian moral code comes from God (you know that I personally think both are man’s creation). You say that a moral code without God “has not been working too well”. I don’t see any evidence of that. Care to elaborate? If secularists had no morals, wouldn’t our jails be filled with them? With only earthly law to abide to, we are free to comment any terrible sin we want without retribution after death, right? So why are the great majority of secularist perfectly normal upstanding citizens? Could it be that men don’t need to fear God’s wrath in order to stay in line? Aren’t we perfectly capable of decent behavior when we follow our own society’s moral code, and not God’s?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My quote: “…it can also be argued that Christianity promotes the idea that you are part of God’s chosen few, and the rest of humanity is worthless and must be converted or killed”. - Luke
You responded with: “No, it can not be argued.”-Kirk
I say, it actually doesn’t have to be argued because there is proof! The crusades used the bible as a reason to invade the holy land. They justified murdering hundreds of thousands because “they were God’s chosen people and He would want them to live in the holy land.” The Spanish Inquisition is another blaring example of how God’s chosen people have inflicted death and punishment on others because it was the will of God. You may claim that these people interpreted the bible poorly, but that is beside the point. I was just arguing that Christianity can and has been used to enforce the worst types of human behavior. There are even examples of this type of behavior in the bible itself. After Moses leads his people through the wilderness for 40 years, God commands him to attack and kill everyone in the new land that is to be God’s people’s land.
Thanks for reading,
Luke
|
| Permanent Link |
8/3/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by KirkGuy |
Thanks Luke,
Actually, I do not read any creationist propaganda. I have been to some college debates in my college days and I have seen some artiticles, but not much. Evoloution never seemed right to me, even as a kid.
You make points, but you are wrong on many of them. I made my points, yet they seem to not make sense to you. That is OK. Neither of us are experts in this field. Often I think the word propaganda is used to discredit somebodys information or somebodys views. Some of the points you make seem to me like Evolution propaganda.
The fact that Evolution is not taught as a Law is WRONG. It is and I can say that from personal experience. My wife has a biology degree and I heard first person acounts of professors saying Evolution is a Fact in class rooms. I graduated from a college strong in Biology and I head similar things there also.
My points about Christianity still stand and further discussion in this format can not do it justice. I thank you for your willingness to read my comments and respond. May God bless you Luke and guide you in your endeavors. - Kirk |
| Permanent Link |
8/3/2005 - Untitled Comment |
| Posted by Anonymous |
"You make points, but you are wrong on many of them." -Kirk
Instead of just saying "you're wrong" I would love to see a more solid argument from you, backed up by actual research. Yet, you don't quite seem capable or willing to participate in this debate any longer. I countered all of your arguments with strong evidence and scrupulous logic, yet you say my points “do not make sense to you”. I consider this a shame, but not a surprise.
"The fact that Evolution is not taught as a Law is WRONG." -Kirk
Any professor worth his salt would never call evolution a "law". It's simply incorrect to say "the law of evolution". It's called "the theory of evolution" in every science book ever printed on the subject. Maybe you just ran into a bad seed. As for a teacher saying evolution is a "fact"…well, look at it like this….Every law or theory in science is a temporary truth, a relative truth. It works for now; it is true for now within the current parameters of scientific knowledge. While it is true that there is no absolutely conclusive proof of evolution, the same can be said for every theory or law in the physical sciences. Science has NO absolute truths, and that includes both theories AND laws. When a scientist says something is “true” or “fact” or “proven”, he is speaking in terms that are relative to what is thought to be “true, fact, or proven” according to the parameters of modern scientific knowledge ….not what will ALWAYS be “true, fact, or proven”. If one seeks absolutes, (statements which are true at all times, under all conditions) then he should stay with the creationists. They, alone, provide absolutes; absolutes which are absolutely wrong. True, evolutionists can't provide provable explanations for some questions; but creationists provide readily disprovable explanations for most questions (as proven by this debate).
“My points about Christianity still stand and further discussion in this format can not do it justice.” –Kirk
I agree, your points about Christianity still stand…..in your own world, but not in the real world. I also agree that further discussion will do no good, because not only is your mind closed to my explanations on why your points are wrong, but you’re also unwilling to put in the time to refute much of what I have to say beyond saying “you’re wrong, this is false, that was proven untrue, etc…etc…” Offer up a solid argument with sound evidence that shows evolution to be false, and then we’ll talk. Until then, it’s been fun.
-Luke
|
| Permanent Link |
|
About Me
The life and times of a freelance illustrator and character designer.
Friends
• AgentHelix
• KirkGuy
• INTERGALACTIC
• Nofret
• Tiramisue
• wignke
• VanhoozerArt
|
