|
|
Re: Astronomy for creationists
[Re: Irish_Farmer]
#69121
05/15/06 08:48
05/15/06 08:48
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
However, don't argue that you do believe the bible. I'm not going to get off on that tangent. Its unimportant. Bible-creationists have plenty of material on the incompatibility of evolution and christianity. Atheists also have a bunch of material on the incompatibility.
No, atheists have no problem with the bible. You can interpret the bible in two ways:
a) Religious interpretation: The bible is a book of parables that contain a deeper wisdom.
b) Superstitious interpretation: The bible is a book of miracle stories that literally happened.
The normal Christian approach is a), therefore Christianity has no problem with science and evolution. On the contrary, I was even told in my Christian education that the bible supports the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. ("Let there be light" - that's the Big Bang. "God separated the light from the darkness" - that's the background radiation. If you want.).
Some Christian sects however interpret the bible as in b). As we've seen in this thread, that gets you indeed into a lot of problems with science and the scientific observations in our world in general - not only in evolution.
Quote:
When I'm getting trained on how to flip burgers at McDonald's, is it because my brain is mutating? Or do I just have the natural intelligence capacity to learn how to do my job?
Yeah, crows who do this might have an advantage, but they have existed without it for how long? Do you really think that they die off just because they don't know to put a nut under a wheel?
Or is it possible that they just learned how to do it because they're intelligent.
I hope your brain did not mutate on your burger job - although I've heard that awful things can happen on burger jobs, like losing your finger. 
Biology normally attributes seemingly intelligent animal behavior to instinct. Thus I do not think that crows understand vehicles and traffic lights. If that were the case, they'd developed that behavior as soon as traffic lights were invented - but it was observed only sice 20 years.
Quote:
How did they know the star isn't just less bright, smaller, etc?
They didn't. At the beginning of the 20th century they just knew the average brightness of a galaxy, and had a rough estimate of the distances of close galaxies (Andromeda). Thus they could tell wich galaxy was close and which one was distant, but did not know much about their absolute distances.
Quote:
A gigantic assumption. For all you know, they've only been moving away from each other for 6000 years. If I see a car driving east past my house, I'm not going to just say, "Oh, it MUST have driven all the way from the west coast." I don't know where it started.
Even the bible does not claim that God gave galaxies a gas pedal.
If you observe a stone flying through the air, and know the law of gravity, you can precisely calculate from which place it was thrown. Besides, if galaxies indeed miraculously started their movement 6000 years ago, we would not see them move at all. Remember, light speed is finite and thus what we're seeing from galaxies happened a long time ago.
Quote:
How do they know, without making a few correlations or assumptions, what the temperature of an object billions of lightyears away is? How do they know what the 'initial mass' is?
The temperature can be derived from its color (blue = hot, red = cold). Every temperature is related to a certain mass and brightness. Thus, if you know a star's temperature, you also know it's true brighness, and when you compare this with its brightness in your telescope, you have its distance. There are a couple twists to this, but this is basically the method.
Quote:
We've seen space expanding? Or did this assumption just make more sense within the frame of the theory?
This assumption made more sense within the frame of the observations.
Quote:
Except it was decided that the big bang would produce variations in this temperature, and lo and behold they found variations (certain 'tropics' if you will). So how do we know what temperature to base this off of?
Not variations, but fluctuations.
The 2.7 Kelvin is the average temperature. The fluctuations in the above image are in the 0.1% range and contain information about the geometry of the universe.
Quote:
Expanding faster because if they aren't then the theory is bunk? Or because we have proof. Why did we only find this proof after the evidence contradicted the theory?
A scientific theory can not be proven, only falsified. In this case the linear expansion theory was falsified by the observations. Later the accelerated expansion theory was developed, which explains the observations.
Quote:
See what I mean. You can come up with all sorts of answers if you come up with assumptions first. You have to assume the way that uranium was created.
Yes, but if you have otherwise information you should urgently call the Pentagon and tell them that all their hydrogen bombs won't work. Uranium creation by nuclear processes in stars is based on standard nuclear physics.
I hope this makes the age of the universe issue a little more clear. If you still have questions, just ask.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69122
05/15/06 09:17
05/15/06 09:17
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
jcl
OP
Chief Engineer
|
OP
Chief Engineer
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 27,986
Frankfurt
|
Quote:
Just to add a little "fuel to the fire": if you separate a Robin's egg from its nest, hatch it in an incubater and never allow it to experience growing up in a Robin's nest of its very own, when that grown bird is released into the wild it will build a Robin's nest. (...) The question, as asked previously, is by which evolutionary means could this information have come about originally?
Just like the crows example. A mutation leads to a change in behavior. If this change of behavior offers a reproduction advantage, it gets preferred by natural selection and replaces the old behavior.
Early birds probably didn't have nests, but hatched their eggs on the ground. Later birds built nests on the ground, and this eventually evolved into building more sophisticated nests in trees.
Quote:
As has been pointed out, mutations (harmful or beneficial) do not add new information to the any creature.
Yes, this is the basic creationist belief, but as they failed so far to give any proof for this other than their faith, I consider this belief unfounded.
Simple math tells you that a random mutation mostly is information neutral, but sometimes adds information ("alleles") to the gene pool. This usually happens when a changed DNA sequence codes a different proteine with a new property that didn't exist before. There are many examples (which are however all disputed by creationists) of the development of new alleles not only within millions of years, but even within our lifetime. If you read all of this thread you'll find some of them - antibiotics resistence, temperature resistence, Milano mutation, etc, and maybe even crow behavior.
Quote:
While some here may argue that instinct is not in the realm of evolution I would obviously disagree. As stated from the beginning, evolution must account for more then the various species that inhabit planet Earth (i.e. the physical form of the creature). It must also explain the evolution of instinct (unlearned behavior) and even the ability to learn (since this is, in itself, additional information that the original protein would not have had). This leads us even to the evolution of conscienceness (sp? ... sorry ... I am tired  ). The original protein could not have had human thinking. Therefore, according to evolutionary thinking, this too had to have come about by evolutionary processess.
I agree. But science can not yet answer the question about how consciousness works, let alone how it developed. The materialist view is that a complex enough brain automatically develops consciousness.
Quote:
What we then have to ask is where did these birds get the ability to reason out the puzzle of placing the nut where the wheel would roll?
I don't know whether there has been research into this. My guess: A bird aquired the behavior to drop the nut on the street instead of rock. This gave him an advantage when he lived close to traffic lights, thus this behavior spread. Further mutations let the birds only drop the nut in certain situtions, i.e. when the traffic stopped, and only in front of the wheels. Learning probably was also involved - for instance, pick up the nuts only when the traffic wasn't going.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: jcl]
#69123
05/15/06 18:18
05/15/06 18:18
|
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
Dan Silverman
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2000
Posts: 11,321
Virginia, USA
|
Hi JCL, Thank you for your thoughts on all of this. Here are a few of mine as well: Quote:
You can interpret the bible in two ways:
a) Religious interpretation: The bible is a book of parables that contain a deeper wisdom.
b) Superstitious interpretation: The bible is a book of miracle stories that literally happened.
Frankly, I do not like these classifications. The reason being is that the second one places people who believe this way in the realm of being superstitious, which is often looked at as being primitive. This may not be the case at all. I would much rather prefer the following two classifications:
a) literal interpretation: Taking the Bible at face value in most cases
b) non-literal interpretation: Alegorizing the Bible in many cases
I take a literal approach to interpreting Scripture and I will attempt to tell you why. I will also tell you that this approach has nothing to do with believing the Bible to be true or not. I believe this is a very important point.
Words have meanings and it is wrong to place meaning on words and/or phrases that the words/phrases do not necessarily carry. For example, if my wife says, "I love you!" I would be wrong to imply that she means that she believes a frog will cross the road lugging an AK-47 loaded with nuclear tipped bullets (obviously, I am being overly silly in this example ). Instead, unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I am forced to conclude that her words mean simply what she stated. I bring this up because of this statement of yours:
Quote:
I was even told in my Christian education that the bible supports the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. ("Let there be light" - that's the Big Bang. "God separated the light from the darkness" - that's the background radiation. If you want.).
I look at the words "And God said, Let there be light." and I get this from it: God made a statement. His statement was "Let there be light" and the end result was light. Please note that I am not stating whether I believe this statement to be true or not. I am also not stating that anyone else should or should not believe that this is how light came into existance. What I am stating is that this is what the words say and therefore I should take them at that meaning no matter what I believe.
I suppose that what I am trying to say is that we should treat the Bible in the same manner that any other ancient document (or modern, for that matter) is treated. In other words, we read the words and take them for what they are. This has nothing to do with believing those words to be true or not, but we should not twist any document simply because we don't believe what it states or agree with its message. We may find an ancient text that gives details about the life of some ancient king. It may contradict what other ancient texts state about the same individual. But we do not change the meaning of the words of any of these texts. Instead, based on whatever evidence there is, we make a decision to believe the document or not. This should be how the Bible is approached as well. The words are often simple ("In the beginning God created ...") and therefore do not even lend themselves to another meaning. I contend that the Bible plainly teaches that God created the heavens and the earth and that it teaches that He did so via his word (i.e. "He said"). Someone may not believe that at all. That is fine. Do not change the text to read as you like simply because someone does not believe it.
Quote:
The normal Christian approach is a), therefore Christianity has no problem with science and evolution.
Some Christian sects however interpret the bible as in b). As we've seen in this thread, that gets you indeed into a lot of problems with science and the scientific observations in our world in general - not only in evolution.
Even the "not normal" Christian does not have problems with science . This idea is a total misunderstanding. What many Christians have a problem with is certain ideas or theories within science, not science itself. It is false to say a Christian has problems with science because he or she has problems with evolution. It simply means they have problems with the concept of evolution as they interpret the data, not with science. It would be nice if we were to keep these distinctions clear. There are many scientists themselves that are indeed creation scientists:
(Note: The following list is very incomplete. Inclusion of any person on this list does idoes not indicate anything about their religious beliefs.)
* Gerald E. Aardsma (physicist and radiocarbon dating)
* Louis Agassiz (helped develop the study of glacial geology and of ichthyology)
* Alexander Arndt (analytical chemist, etc.) [more info]
* Steven A. Austin (geologist and coal formation expert) [more info]
* Charles Babbage (helped develop science of computers / developed actuarial tables and the calculating machine)
* Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)
* Thomas G. Barnes (physicist) [more info]
* Robert Boyle (helped develop sciences of chemistry and gas dynamics)
* Wernher von Braun (pioneer of rocketry and space exploration)
* David Brewster (helped develop science of optical mineralogy)
* Arthur V. Chadwick (geologist) [more info]
* Melvin Alonzo Cook (physical chemist, Nobel Prize nominee) [more info]
* Georges Cuvier (helped develop sciences of comparative anatomy and vertebrate paleontology)
* Humphry Davy (helped develop science of thermokinetics)
* Donald B. DeYoung (physicist, specializing in solid-state, nuclear science and astronomy) [more info]
* Henri Fabre (helped develop science of insect entomology)
* Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)
* Danny R. Faulkner (astronomer) [more info]
* Ambrose Fleming (helped develop science of electronics / invented thermionic valve)
* Robert V. Gentry (physicist and chemist) [more info]
* Duane T. Gish (biochemist) [more info]
* John Grebe (chemist) [more info]
* Joseph Henry (invented the electric motor and the galvanometer / discovered self-induction)
* William Herschel (helped develop science of galactic astronomy / discovered double stars / developed the Global Star Catalog)
* George F. Howe (botanist) [more info]
* D. Russell Humphreys (award-winning physicist) [more info]
* James P. Joule (developed reversible thermodynamics)
* Johann Kepler (helped develop science of physical astronomy / developed the Ephemeris Tables)
* John W. Klotz (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
* Leonid Korochkin (geneticist) [more info]
* Lane P. Lester (geneticist and biologist) [more info]
* Carolus Linnaeus (helped develop sciences of taxonomy and systematic biology / developed the Classification System)
* Joseph Lister (helped develop science of antiseptic surgery)
* Frank L. Marsh (biologist) [more info]
* Matthew Maury (helped develop science of oceanography/hydrography)
* James Clerk Maxwell (helped develop the science of electrodynamics)
* Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)
* Samuel F. B. Morse (invented the telegraph)
* Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)
* Gary E. Parker (biologist and paleontologist) [more info]
* Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)
* Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)
* William Ramsay (helped develop the science of isotopic chemistry / discovered inert gases)
* John Ray (helped develop science of biology and natural science)
* Lord Rayleigh (helped develop science of dimensional analysis)
* Bernhard Riemann (helped develop non-Euclidean geometry)
* James Simpson (helped develop the field of gynecology / developed the use of chloroform)
* Nicholas Steno (helped develop the science of stratigraphy)
* George Stokes (helped develop science of fluid mechanics)
* Charles B. Thaxton (chemist) [more info]
* William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)
* Larry Vardiman (astrophysicist and geophysicist) [more info]
* Leonardo da Vinci (helped develop science of hydraulics)
* Rudolf Virchow (helped develop science of pathology)
* A.J. (Monty) White (chemist) [more info]
* A.E. Wilder-Smith (chemist and pharmacology expert) [more info]
* John Woodward (helped develop the science of paleontology)
Each of the above individuals holds a doctorate in a science related field.
Here is an interesting quote from Science Digest(Larry Hatfield, "Educators Against Darwin," Science Digest Special (Winter 1979), pp. 94-96.):
Quote:
Scientists who utterly reject Evolution may be one of our fastest-growing controversial minorities... Many of the scientists supporting this position hold impressive credentials in science.
I give this list and the above quote only to support my concept that Christians and religious people who hold to a creationist view do not have problems with science, but with certain concepts and theories accepted within science itself.
Quote:
If you observe a stone flying through the air, and know the law of gravity, you can precisely calculate from which place it was thrown.
Actually, no. This is not correct. You would need to know at least the original amount of energy put into the stone (the original velocity of the stone). Without knowing this you cannot accurately determine the starting place of the stone's throw. For example, if a kid throws a stone and you only see it just before it hits the ground (i.e. at the point where the force of gravity is overtaking the inertia of the stone) or if someone fired the stone from a sling shot (more initial inertia) and you see it at the point just before it hits the ground then you are only seeing the stone (in both cases) with approx. the same amount of energy. You cannot therefore know from how far the stone was thrown or shot. There are just too many variables in this situation.
Quote:
Just like the crows example. A mutation leads to a change in behavior.
You state this as fact. Do you have any scientific evidence to support this claim?
Quote:
Early birds probably didn't have nests, but hatched their eggs on the ground. Later birds built nests on the ground, and this eventually evolved into building more sophisticated nests in trees.
This is quite an assumption and it is an assumption based purely on evolutionary thought, but it is an assumption that is not based on observation. Observation is a key to science. We come up with ideas and test them and then observe the results. We then modify our ideas best on what we observe. This is basic science.
If we study birds and their nesting habits then we find that some birds certainly nest on the ground, some in the rocks and some in trees, etc. What we do not observe is a type of bird nesting on the ground suddenly (or even gradually) nesting in the trees. For generation after generation the same type of bird nests in the same way without deviation. This observation would indicate that birds did not all begin nesting on the ground and then evolve into tree nesting animals. Instead, this observation would lend itself to the idea that a Robin has always built its nest in the same manner. This observation is further solidified by tests we can do (i.e. hatching a Robin egg in an incubator and then, when grown, observing the same bird build a Robin nest, etc). I would think that scientific observation would lead us to different conclusions then your "probability".
Quote:
Yes, this is the basic creationist belief, but as they failed so far to give any proof for this other than their faith, I consider this belief unfounded.
It has nothing to do with a "creationist belief". It has to do with science. Do we have evidence of a random mutation adding information? What scientific evidence of this kind do we have? On the other hand it has certainly been observed that random mutations can decrease or take away information.
Quote:
Simple math tells you that a random mutation mostly is information neutral, but sometimes adds information ("alleles") to the gene pool. This usually happens when a changed DNA sequence codes a different proteine with a new property that didn't exist before.
I am sure you have heard the old phrase, "You can't get something from nothing!" How can a mutation (and a random one at that) add information that was not there before? I could understand a re-aranging of information already present and/or the loss of information resulting in differing behaviors, but not something completely new added. For example, if you take away one of a dog's legs so that he only has three then he has lost something, but behaves a bit differently than other dogs. No new genetic code has been added, but the behavior has changed a bit to compensate.
I think an example that we can understand is the breading of dogs. It is clear that all dogs, no matter their size, come from wolves somewhere along the line. When we breed dogs we are not breeding IN new information in order to make a poodle or a Great Dane. Instead, we are actually breeding OUT undesirable traits in order to keep only the traits we want. As a result, while it seems many of these dogs (pure breads) aquire new traits in actuality they do not. In fact, pure bread dogs tend to have a lot of physical problems (heart problems, respritory problems, etc) ... problems that their cousins, the wolves, do not exibit. These problems stem from a loss of information, not a gain. And the benefits (greater speed, larger bodies, longer ears, etc) are not a result of new genetic information gained, but by information being lost thus allowing other traits (traits that were already in the gene code) to dominate. It could very well be possible that random mutations could cause a loss of information that could cause recessive data to dominate where once they did not and this is what we are observing as "new" data.
Many, many years ago scientists would observe a piece of cloth in a jar and later see worms in the jar with the cloth. Based on this observation they would conclude that the worms came from the cloth or that life came from non-life. Today we laugh at such an idea and, yet, these ideas that new information comes into existance via random mutations sounds very much like it. We see the cloth and later worms. We see the animal and then a new behavior. I am certain I am not making my point very clearly, but I am guessing we will one day look back and laugh at this notion of mutations creating new information.
Quote:
The materialist view is that a complex enough brain automatically develops consciousness.
And based on this we feel that if we simply make a complex enough machine it will eventually develop a consciousness as well. This is, after all, the stated goal of computing ... to create an artifically intelligent and self-aware machine. But this is an interesting thing to me. Whether we will ever achieve a true artificial intelligence or not is not what I want to debate here. But there is something to see in this process. These machines, if they ever develop a conscious, will not do it alone. It will happen because mankind worked toward this goal. The machine may or may not turn out as we expect, but we will have had our hand in its beginnings. Consciousness will come from unconsciousness by the guiding hand of man (in this case) ... it will not come about by random chance.
Quote:
Further mutations let the birds only drop the nut in certain situtions, i.e. when the traffic stopped, and only in front of the wheels. Learning probably was also involved - for instance, pick up the nuts only when the traffic wasn't going.
Are you actually saying that the birds that crack nuts under the wheels of cars have experienced a mutation and that those that do not have not experienced this mutation? In other words, if we were to take an egg from one of these birds, hatch it in an incubator and then release it (where there aren't any of its kind, but there are streets, cars and stop lights) that this bird will start to crack nuts under the wheels of cars at stop lights? I don't think so. If it was an actual mutation then there should be some way to check this and see. There should be something different in the genetic code of these birds than others of their kind that do not exhibit this behavior.
Frankly, I think the example of birds cracking nuts at stop lights only shows us that these animals are quite intelligent. If I wanted to postulate an idea on how this all came about I would guess it went something like this:
The bird dropped a nut on the street (it could have been anywhere, but it was a street ... I saw this at my home in Israel because there were nut trees lining the street near our home). The bird intended to crack the nut the same way it always did, but a car came a scared the bird. After the bird returns it find the nut cracked open by the wheel of the car. After this happens a few times the bird would begin to purposely bring the nut to the street. It may not understand how the nut got cracked open, but it would begin to associate the street with the cracked nut. Later, as the bird keeps fleeing from the sound of oncoming cars he begins to not only associate the cracked nut with the street, but with the street and the sound. This would teach the bird to bring the nut to the street and to wait for the sound in order to get a cracked open nut.
I could go further, but I think we can see the point. No new information was needed genetically. No random mutation was necessary. All that was needed was an already existing level of intelligence for the bird to observe some very simple things in its environment and to use them to their advantage. If a single bird could learn via this simple method then others could learn via observing as well as their own experiences. These birds only exhibit the difference between learned behavior and instinct and nothing more.
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69124
05/15/06 18:30
05/15/06 18:30
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Quote:
A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
For the rest of this post, I'm going to assume that the specific definition of superstition is:
Quote:
A belief, practice, or rite irrationally maintained by ignorance of the laws of nature or by faith in magic or chance.
None of the other definitions really seemed to fit the context. So, here goes.
Quote:
No, atheists have no problem with the bible. You can interpret the bible in two ways:
a) Religious interpretation: The bible is a book of parables that contain a deeper wisdom.
b) Superstitious interpretation: The bible is a book of miracle stories that literally happened.
I'll recognize that my belief is, according to the definition, a superstition. However, I do recognize that it goes against the laws of nature. But I also recognize that the laws of nature had a beginning, and that that beginning was started by a creator. There's no two ways around it. So assuming that a creator can create the universe, I also assume that he can bend the laws of the universe. You don't believe in the creator, so this isn't your bag of tea. It really doesn't matter.
But, this gets to a bigger point.
Atheists don't have a problem with the bible, maybe. They have a problem that people believe what the bible says. It irks them. However, I'll admit that my belief is superstitious, according to definition. That's fine.
Its just as superstitious as the belief that life can start randomly, and just as superstitious as the belief that the universe can create itself out of nothing. So your belief in the Big Bang (not the evidence for it, but the actual event), and the origin of life is superstitious too. Technically, its also superstitious to believe that mutations can 'write' creatures, since its never happened, nor is there any physical evidence of its possibility, but we'll have to deal with that seperately.
NO ONE can escape superstition if they want to have ANY kind of belief on these events. If you don't want to be superstitious, deal only with what you know day in and day out, with your own eyes. I don't want to be that way, and there's only two possibilities for an answer. God, or nature. I've made my choice, but they're both just as irrational.
Quote:
Biology normally attributes seemingly intelligent animal behavior to instinct. Thus I do not think that crows understand vehicles and traffic lights. If that were the case, they'd developed that behavior as soon as traffic lights were invented - but it was observed only sice 20 years.
Well, this is kind of a sticky topic. I don't think they understand traffic lights per se.
However, many experiments have been done on birds (less 'intelligent' than the crow) and they have shown that animals (birds in this case) can problem solve, and learn. They took several small birds of the same species, and had one group of them go through a puzzle that kept growing in complexity. As they went through the puzzle step by step, they eventually were able to solve the most difficult puzzle which the other birds could not without the step-by-step process.
I don't think all animal behavior can be attributed to instinct. I don't think experimentation supports it. And I don't think mutations had anything to do with these crows learning to put their food under car tires.
There's another example of birds using motion detectors on doors to open them up and get food before returning, opening the door again, and bringing the food back to a nest inside a hardware store.
If such arbitrary behavior can be endowed with mutations, we should randomly see birds behaving very strangely. After all, the mutations don't know that the crows need to put the food under car tires. We should see some birds that put the nut under a tree, do a dance around it, and then expect it to be cracked open. I don't know, but it seems the possibilities for strange behavior would be endless, until they happened to mutate to figure out that car tires open up nuts.
I guess I'm going to have to drop out of the debate on the distance of stars. You win. Some of the things you said seemed pretty circular. But in general I won't disagree that we really are seeing things that are that far away. The most compelling evidence being that are galaxy MUST be pretty large (larger in distance than time allowed for YECreation) and we probably see objects outside of it.
I believe that time dialation can explain this, and that relatively the universe is alternately billions of years old and thousands of years old. Frankly, the evidence on our own planet that it isn't much more than a handful of thousands of years old is more compelling to our own existence.
I do have to wonder. If the Milky Way galaxy is about 80,000 to 100,000 light years in diameter, and contains about 200 to 400 billion stars, why are there so few stars in the sky? Even in photographs from the moon (with little unnatural light, and no atmosphere) the number of stars doesn't seem to match up. Actually in a lot of the photos of moon landings I didn't see any stars, which is strange because they're always visible (even during 'day'), but I assume there's a physical explanation for that.
Anyway, I don't really have much time left, so I want to move on to the other points.
Quote:
Yes, this is the basic creationist belief, but as they failed so far to give any proof for this other than their faith, I consider this belief unfounded.
Its just an observed fact that mutations don't add information. I think anyone without a bias watching this debate can plainly see that there has yet to be an example of new information.
Quote:
Simple math tells you that a random mutation mostly is information neutral, but sometimes adds information ("alleles") to the gene pool.
In that case, a mutation can lose information, add it to the gene pool and be called new information. Its relative to the genome. You can't look at it any other way, or you're ignoring genetic science.
A loss of information doesn't have to mean a complete loss of purpose. If I say, wash my bedroom window, compared to, wash my window, I'm still saying close to the same thing. However, one has less information than the other. Let's say that by not referencing a specific window, I get the person I'm talking to, to wash my car window instead by coincidence. This may work out for the best, because my car's window needed washing, but the specific information was still lost.
This is consistent with information theory, which evolution is not, and its consistent with what we observe. The only objection to this is that it doesn't fit evolution. Maybe evolution doesn't happen. You can't force the data to fit the theory, that's not how science works.
Quote:
antibiotics resistence, temperature resistence, Milano mutation
I think we'll have to get back on these, because they weren't quite resolved like I thought they were.
Quote:
Transformation May Combine DNA from Different Bacterial Species
Bacteria employ several methods of recombination that allow gene transfer between unrelated species. A process called transformation allows bacteria to pick up free DNA from the environment. The free DNA may be part of the chromosome of another bacterium, including DNA from a bacterium of another species. Transformation may also occur when bacteria pick up tiny circular DNA molecules called plasmids (Fig. 13-1). Plasmids, which range in size from about 1000 to 100,000 nucleotides, are self-replicating lengths of DNA normally found in the cytoplasm of many types of bacteria and some yeasts. A single bacterium--a host cell--may contain dozens or even hundreds of copies of a plasmid. Although the bacterium’s “own” chromosome contains all the genes the cell normally needs for survival, the genes carried by the plasmid may also be useful. For example, some plasmids contain genes that code for enzymes that digest certain antibodies, such as penicillin. In environments where exposure to antibiotics is high, such as hospitals, these plasmids spread quickly, conferring a major advantage to their bacterial hosts and making antibiotic-resistant infections a serious problem (see Chapter 19). A bacterium may acquire plasmids from its own strain or from other types of bacteria. These plasmids are either liberated into the environment when a bacterium dies or are exchanged between living bacteria.
Viruses May Transfer DNA between Bacteria and between Eukaryotic Species
Viruses, which are little more than genetic material encased in a protein coat, transfer their genetic material to cells. Their viral genes replicate and direct the synthesis of viral proteins. New virus particles are assembled inside the cell, then released to repeat the cycle (Fig 13-2). Viruses may transfer genes among bacteria and among eukaryotic organisms, such as plants, as well. Bacteriophages, specialized viruses that infect bacteria, occasionally acquire pieces of bacterial DNA. The bacteriophages, or phages, then release this DNA into other bacteria that they infect. In some cases, the transferred bacterial DNA becomes incorporated into the host bacterial chromosome, adding new genetic material.
Audesirk & Audesirk, Biology, 5th edition, 1999, pages 230 - 231
That's a college textbook, I believe. Creationists don't dispute bacterial resistance via mutation, science does.
Heat resistance I can't argue. I don't know how the bacteria got the resistance. So I don't know how its done, what changes have to be made, and if those changes have to be brought about by mutation or natural genetic change.
Milano mutation I thought was already solved. I don't understand how going from producing HDLs to doing nothing is considered new information. But maybe that's because I don't believe in the impossible.
Quote:
The materialist view is that a complex enough brain automatically develops consciousness.
This is really a dead end argument. We can't debate something neither side really understands. But it is an interesting topic.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69125
05/15/06 20:42
05/15/06 20:42
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Quote:
Words have meanings and it is wrong to place meaning on words and/or phrases that the words/phrases do not necessarily carry. For example, if my wife says, "I love you!" I would be wrong to imply that she means that she believes a frog will cross the road lugging an AK-47 loaded with nuclear tipped bullets (obviously, I am being overly silly in this example ). Instead, unless I have reason to believe otherwise, I am forced to conclude that her words mean simply what she stated. I bring this up because of this statement of yours:
[Quote]:
I was even told in my Christian education that the bible supports the Big Bang and the Evolution theories. ("Let there be light" - that's the Big Bang. "God separated the light from the darkness" - that's the background radiation. If you want.).
I look at the words "And God said, Let there be light." and I get this from it: God made a statement. His statement was "Let there be light" and the end result was light. Please note that I am not stating whether I believe this statement to be true or not.
And that's exactly why I don't 'like' the bible. Sure, if the bible would say event A happened, after it, event B happened and so on, I would probably not have any problems. But there are so many vague texts which give room to more than one interpretation. Proof me wrong if you wish, but it's all the same, as seen in this thread people use pretty vague texts as evidence for all kinds of events, eventhough literally there has only been written things like 'and then there was light'. I agree with your motivation on why you believe it to have been meant literally though, that's perfectly reasonable. But when you compare certain facts to the literal meaning of the text then personally, wether or not the content is true or not, I begin to doubt it nevertheless. It takes only one thing that doesn't add up and the whole text becomes questionable. Take simple details like changing water to wine. It's impossible, at least the way it's described, thus literally. I'm really not going to believe in any miraclestories unless I'd witnessed them myself. May sound a bit arrogant, but I rather see first, and believe afterwards, not the other way around.
Anyways I could probably write a big book about why I don't believe in the bible, which I might write someday, but I won't bother you with that now. The topic is about evolution or creation, not the bible. But off course the creationists theory ís basically in the bible.
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: PHeMoX]
#69126
05/15/06 21:43
05/15/06 21:43
|
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
Irish_Farmer
User
|
User
Joined: Feb 2004
Posts: 718
Wisconsin
|
Phemox, the way you spoke about the bible seemed to me to describe the fossil record more than anything. Although, I'm sure you have no problem believing whatever you're told about that.
How many different ways are there to interpret the bible. Please point out a section of the bible, and give me a rational way to view it from different angles. Don't give me examples of christians who compromise the bible, tell me your own personal way of being able to interpret different parts of the bible different ways.
"The task force finds that...the unborn child is a whole human being from the moment of fertilization, that all abortions terminate the life of a human being, and that the unborn child is a separate human patient under the care of modern medicine."
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69128
05/15/06 22:58
05/15/06 22:58
|
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
PHeMoX
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 8,177
Netherlands
|
Well the bible is the basis of the creation theory isn't it? Ok, I'll try to be brief, eventhough I do feel that it fits in here. First off, some more arguments against a literal interpretation. Let's start with how you explain certain contradictions in the bible, when the text supposedly has a literal meaning? Just to name some which i've came across: -Who's the father? MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ. LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli. -Contradiction: ISA 14:21 Prepare slaughter for his children for the iniquity of their fathers; that they do not rise, nor possess the land, nor fill the face of the world with cities. DEU 24:16 The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. -Snakes do not eat dust, but the bible claims otherwise: GEN 3:14 And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life: -Order of creation oddness: Here is the order in the first (Genesis 1), the Priestly tradition: Day 1: Sky, Earth, light Day 2: Water, both in ocean basins and above the sky(!) Day 3: Plants Day 4: Sun, Moon, stars (as calendrical and navigational aids) Day 5: Sea monsters (whales), fish, birds, land animals, creepy-crawlies (reptiles, insects, etc.) Day 6: Humans (apparently both sexes at the same time) Day 7: Nothing (the Gods took the first day off anyone ever did) Note that there are "days," "evenings," and "mornings" before the Sun was created. Here, the Deity is referred to as "Elohim," which is a plural, thus the literal translation, "the Gods." In this tale, the Gods seem satisfied with what they have done, saying after each step that "it was good." The second one (Genesis 2), the Yahwist tradition, goes: Earth and heavens (misty) Adam, the first man (on a desolate Earth) Plants Animals Eve, the first woman (from Adam's rib) Infact, this even indicates the existance of more than 1 God, when one would interpret it literally. -Jesus' genealogy, eventhough he supposedly had no father except God: In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned. Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH, How can this be true? and also How can Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father. -Can God be seen? Exod. 24:9,10; Amos 9:1; Gen. 26:2; and John 14:9 God CAN be seen: "And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts." (Ex. 33:23) "And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend." (Ex. 33:11) "For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved." (Gen. 32:30) God CANNOT be seen: "No man hath seen God at any time." (John 1:18) "And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live." (Ex. 33:20) "Whom no man hath seen nor can see." (1 Tim. 6:16) It's just the tip of an iceberg really, there are tons of more errors like these. Reasons enough for me to believe that the bible is infact folklore, it has all ingredients for it. As for text being multi-interpretational, the existance of a belief in literal and non-literal interpretation says enough. Not only that, but the way some texts get quoted proves it too. It would not make much sense to go bother you with my own interpretations of texts. The fact that different people interpret the texts differently says enough. This proves, unless their claims are totally ridiculous, that the texts are or can be multi-interpretational. With text like the part about snakes who supposedly eat dust according to a literal interpretation, well how can you even defend that? Quote:
The Bible, Christian exegetes claim, speaks to a basic human desire for limits, for certainty and closure. However, in its efforts to maintain its image of textual coherency, the Bible has been as much a site of interpretative struggle as ideological; it demonstrates, indeed, that the political is imbricated in every reading and every writing. The historical shifting of the locus of truth in the Bible from the word, to an authorized interpretation, to the subjective response of the believer, belies the impossibility of ever fixing truth to the polysemic nature of the sign; the history of Bible is nothing but the history of its many interpretations, of its demonstration of the irreducible polyphony of the sign and of language itself. It is the history of the effort to forestall the inevitable slippage of meaning into the free play, the multiple and mutable truths of the writerly text.
Indeed, with its many interlocking parts (the Synoptic Gospels, for example, tell many of the same stories from different points of view), its tentative sequentiality (unlike a novel, very few readers actually read the scriptures from beginning to end. Many find it just as useful to open the text to any page and read what ever chance/divine guidance shows them), and its history of multiple interpretations and re-writings (William Blake, for example, believed Satan was the hero of Genesis), it is just as possible to see the Bible as the model of hypertext as it is of The Book. In every Book, one might say, is a hypertext struggling to get out and vice versa.
Well if even Christians themselves argue about it's content, then who am I?
Cheers
|
|
|
Re: evolution vs creation
[Re: Dan Silverman]
#69130
05/16/06 00:22
05/16/06 00:22
|
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
Blattsalat
Senior Expert
|
Senior Expert
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 5,181
Austria
|
while its right that creationism isnt equal to the bible it is connected with religion so it is either christianity, islam or pick the religion of your choise here. creationism is based on the fact that god exists and that he/she/it had the time and will to create the universe. remembering a nice quote that compared religion with science: 1.) the observable fact: a river is moving along a terrain 2.) sollution one: religion.... we can claim that the reason the river moves how it moves is because of something called "spirit of the river" a holy power or some sort of supernatural god will. this makes the river bend and stream and break his way thru the landscape 3.) sollution two: science.. we know different physical forces have an impact on anything arround so as a result a river has to stream thru the landscape to reach the sea. 4.) observable fact: if we take away, adjust or alter those physical forces the stream will change. removing all phyiscal impact also will transform the river from a river into a mess of particles 5.) conclusion: if removing the so called "spiritual river" doesnt have any impact or doesnt change anything (the river stays a river and doesnt change at all) chances are very good that something like a river spirit is not existent in first place. intelligent design has one big problem and is a risk to religion: if evolution can be proved with one single fact this would kill god. religion that does not interact with science has the benefit that even a solid evolution can go hand in hand with religion. this is only for the claim of "irrational" superstition evolution should look like if creationists are comparing both of them. about the living forms extracted from the habitat and placed into an isolated enviroenment (the bird and nest issue): it has been shown more then often that animals included into different environments and raised by other species will addapt their behavior. its important to understand what instincts are. the instinct we and the bird share is not to build a house but to achive shelter. depending on our limitations and boundries we and the bird tries to achieve the best to get as much shelter as possible...or better said: the best shelter available for our needs. Its not a dna code that makes us build the empire state building. If this would be fact humans would have the same sort of houses since genesis If the birds would grow thumbs they would start to build doorbells and door handles. also its observable that different bird types build other nests if they are placed as a minority (one or two) into another swarm right from the start. example: birds caged from their birth and released later on are building different types of nests if they dont have contact with their own species. A thing disovered during the age of sail and colonialsim. so the instinct tells them to build shelter. but the result depends on their approach and "social" contacts. take humans for example: the development of architecture is so different from region to region (take the ancient times) and this even though no other species is as communicative as the human one. cheers
|
|
|
|
