Anabolics
Search More Than 6,000,000 Posts
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 54
  1. #1
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223

    Challange to creationists

    Seems like a great deal of people here consider creationism as a science or atleast a scientific approach.

    As far as I have seen creationists is good at one thing and one thing alone, Critisising evolution WITHOUT offering a alterantive.

    So now I want to se the ideas included in the "theory of creationism" or inteligente design or whatever you want to call it.

    1. What is the basic outlines of the theory? Like how does it explain the various stages of life this planet has seen and how does it explain the current makeup of spieces?

    2. What is the evidence of design?

    3(most important). What falsifiable predictions does creationism make?



    Note this isnt a bash evolution thread. This is a defende creationism thread.
    Showing flaws in evolution does NOT prove creationism, just as showing flaws in theory of relativity doesnt prove that god is pulling in all matter.

  2. #2
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    in my opinion.....sometimes there arent definite/factual answers to things. your scientific approach to evolution or whichever theory you believe in, is just that.....a theory. it is not factual that evolution is correct.....it is not factual that the big bang theory is correct.......and it is not "factual" that creation is correct. its all what one perceives to be the truth, and what one believes to be the truth. i personally believe in creation. can i prove it? no. but neither can someone prove evolution. it will be a never ending battle just like the the battle on abortion. there will never be a unanimous decision on any one theory.

  3. #3
    Mesomorphyl's Avatar
    Mesomorphyl is offline Smart Ass Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    Pissing on saluu
    Posts
    7,024
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    in my opinion.....sometimes there arent definite/factual answers to things. your scientific approach to evolution or whichever theory you believe in, is just that.....a theory. it is not factual that evolution is correct.....it is not factual that the big bang theory is correct.......and it is not "factual" that creation is correct. its all what one perceives to be the truth, and what one believes to be the truth. i personally believe in creation. can i prove it? no. but neither can someone prove evolution. it will be a never ending battle just like the the battle on abortion. there will never be a unanimous decision on any one theory.
    Excellent answer. And in the words of johan "Showing flaws in creationism does NOT prove evolution" or visa versa...

  4. #4
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    in my opinion.....sometimes there arent definite/factual answers to things. your scientific approach to evolution or whichever theory you believe in, is just that.....a theory. it is not factual that evolution is correct.....it is not factual that the big bang theory is correct.......and it is not "factual" that creation is correct. its all what one perceives to be the truth, and what one believes to be the truth. i personally believe in creation. can i prove it? no. but neither can someone prove evolution. it will be a never ending battle just like the the battle on abortion. there will never be a unanimous decision on any one theory.
    well the thing is some theories are proven so many times that they are almost 100% foolproof. True we can never know if our theories are "right", we can only tell how much of nature we can predict with them. Newtons mechanics predicts all non relativistic and non quantum effects to a degree that is so good that one might aswell say the laws and equations ARE correct. Same with maxwells equations. So the desicion on those theories are unanimous.
    I dont know how you define factual, but its surely a safe bet to go with the theories that have withstood the test of time over and over again. If they explain nature in a satisfying way and make predictions that can experimentialy be verified they are correct.

    Now to turn it back to creationism. What predictions does creationism make? What is the basis for the theory ect.

    I hate to se people think that creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution because it ISNT. Intelligente design isnt even a theory, its just pure unfalsifiable speculation and THAT is why it should NEVER be in any science class. It belongs in religion and philosophie not in science.

    Thats why I started this thread, to se if my view is wrong and to se if intelligent design acctualy is a falsifiable theory. If it isnt then I hope people atleast will understand why it has no place in scientific debates.

    you can not compere big bang theory with creationism. The big bang theory is "just" a theory sure, but it has made alot of predictions that have been verified so far. So has evolution.
    One example of a prediction from evolution is that darwin(or some other famous biolog cant remember who) predicted the characteristics of specific spieces of insect(I think it was a insect) that had not been found yet, based on the vegiation in a area. When he examined the area sure enough he found the predicted insect.

  5. #5
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    i dont agree that creationism is a scietific approach. its not. but i also think that they shouldnt teach evolution in science class either. just like they shouldnt say prayers prior class. wouldnt you agree?each one infringes on someones religious beliefs.

  6. #6
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    I dont agree with that. All major fields of science should always be in school since its the foundation of our knoweledge. If it interferes with religion so be it.

    Having it any other way would supresse scientific development in the way the catholic church did during the dark ages.

  7. #7
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Removing courses because they can interfer with certain religions would grant religion influence in school, influence it should not by any means have(except in theologi classes).

  8. #8
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    so its ok to wrong the religious child by teaching something against his beliefs, but its not ok to have prayer and wrong the aetheist in the classroom? a little hypocritical, isnt it?

  9. #9
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    no simply because teaching evolution has a purpose while prayer doesnt(from a knoweledge point of view).

    Tell me in what way prayer advances knoweledge and you would have a point.

    School should be a place to gain knoweledge without religious interferance.

  10. #10
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    why is it that they do not teach religion of all sorts in schools (except the university)? do you honestly think there is no knowledge to gain from learning religion? that would be absurd to think that, imo. i believe you do gain knowledge from prayer. praying gives you a better sense of self worth and being. and when self worth is at a higher level, then being able to learn and keep an open mind is at a higher level.

    my point of responding to begin with is to point out the liberal hypocracy that goes on everyday of our lives (here in the usa).

    its ok to offend a christian/islamic/jew/etc by teaching a topic that goes against everything they believe in. but yet it is not ok to offend an atheist by allowing prayer in school. its gone so far that they dont even teach any religion to kids nowadays. what is wrong with learning what different cultures believe in? i.e. islam, christianity, judaism, buddhism, etc. it is not only interesting to learn these topics, its also very informative to learn how/why people around the world have different ways of life. and why they do the things they do. i.e. arabs and jews in war for the last several centuries. alot of wars, as a matter of fact, in the past, have been started over religion.

  11. #11
    BeerBaron's Avatar
    BeerBaron is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,458
    I would love for someone to outline a theory of creation that explains everything we know about our past to date. It would be very interesting to see how a theory that is based on scientific method, would match up against a theory which is based on faith that there is some force that spoke to use through a man named jesus, and then working backwards from that knowledge.

  12. #12
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    we have mandatory religious classes in our elementary schools in sweden. Both in junior high and high school. Maths, swedish, english, religion, history is the subjects everyone has to take in high school.

    there is knoweledge to gain from learning religion, especialy the way it dictates human behavior.
    But there is no knoweledge to gain from prayer. If you want to study buddhism you dont force kids to meditate on the suffering in the world and if you want to teach christianity you dont force them to pray. You teach them the theoretical aspects of the religion.

    Religions classes have a a equaly justified place in elemntary school as evolution. But prayer doesnt. Just as meditation doesnt.

  13. #13
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerBaron
    I would love for someone to outline a theory of creation that explains everything we know about our past to date. It would be very interesting to see how a theory that is based on scientific method, would match up against a theory which is based on faith that there is some force that spoke to use through a man named jesus, and then working backwards from that knowledge.
    i have never heard anybody attempt to outline a THEORY of creationism. it is based on faith. its about as provable as the big bang theory in that there was a big explosion, etc, and that is how the planets were created. how did the explosion get created in the first place? how did the mice or dinosours that we supposedly evolved from get here to begin with? there are no answers to any of it. imo, thats called a miracle. any of the ways you chose. so its not inconceivable to believe that there is a God that created everything that we now know. no more inconceivable than where evolution began, etc.

  14. #14
    BeerBaron's Avatar
    BeerBaron is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    why is it that they do not teach religion of all sorts in schools (except the university)? do you honestly think there is no knowledge to gain from learning religion?
    I honestly think there is no significant knowledge to gain. It is not much different than studying a book of philosophy, except religious books threaten you into accepting their words.

  15. #15
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerBaron
    I honestly think there is no significant knowledge to gain. It is not much different than studying a book of philosophy, except religious books threaten you into accepting their words.
    although most things around the world, in history, have stemmed from one religion or the other? i.e. the middle east and israel. does religion play a little role in that conflict as well as most in the last 6000 years? i would say so. religion has formed the basis of most cultures and societies in the world. there is alot to learn from all religions.

  16. #16
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    i have never heard anybody attempt to outline a THEORY of creationism. it is based on faith. its about as provable as the big bang theory in that there was a big explosion, etc, and that is how the planets were created. how did the explosion get created in the first place? how did the mice or dinosours that we supposedly evolved from get here to begin with? there are no answers to any of it. imo, thats called a miracle. any of the ways you chose. so its not inconceivable to believe that there is a God that created everything that we now know. no more inconceivable than where evolution began, etc.
    Not trying to offend you but that is a horrible comparison. The big bang theory generaly is only about the effects of the bang, not the cause of the bang. Simply because our current understanding of physics doesnt allow us to make a model for the first brief moment of the bang.

    BUT we have a very good modell on how the universe got to be the way it is now following the bang. We can also se traces of the big bang so we have a pretty good idea that it happend if we dont interpret the remnants the wrong way.All of this predicted by the big bang modell. The predictions of the big bang modell fits the current universe.

    Creationism has NO similar modell to explain anything at all.

  17. #17
    BeerBaron's Avatar
    BeerBaron is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    1,458
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    i have never heard anybody attempt to outline a THEORY of creationism. it is based on faith. its about as provable as the big bang theory in that there was a big explosion, etc, and that is how the planets were created. how did the explosion get created in the first place? how did the mice or dinosours that we supposedly evolved from get here to begin with? there are no answers to any of it. imo, thats called a miracle. any of the ways you chose. so its not inconceivable to believe that there is a God that created everything that we now know. no more inconceivable than where evolution began, etc.
    But if creationsim were true, shouldn't scientific facts at least line up statements in the bible? For example, the time frame the bible gives us for the earth being created.

  18. #18
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    Not trying to offend you but that is a horrible comparison. The big bang theory generaly is only about the effects of the bang, not the cause of the bang. Simply because our current understanding of physics doesnt allow us to make a model for the first brief moment of the bang.

    BUT we have a very good modell on how the universe got to be the way it is now following the bang. We can also se traces of the big bang so we have a pretty good idea that it happend if we dont interpret the remnants the wrong way.All of this predicted by the big bang modell. The predictions of the big bang modell fits the current universe.

    Creationism has NO similar modell to explain anything at all.
    can anybody answer how the big bang got to the bang? no they cannot, and you can only speculate that there WAS a big bang.

    did the bang just arise for no reason whatsoever? did it just occur from nowhere out of the sky? and how did the sky get there to begin with?

    these are question that are not able to be answered at all. they miraculously happened.

  19. #19
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    can anybody answer how the big bang got to the bang? no they cannot, and you can only speculate that there WAS a big bang.

    did the bang just arise for no reason whatsoever? did it just occur from nowhere out of the sky? and how did the sky get there to begin with?

    these are question that are not able to be answered at all. they miraculously happened.
    Nope no one can. But you are missing my point.

    We have a mathematical model based on the big bang. We can with the model make predictions on what the universe should be like right now. We can examine the universe and se if the predictions are right. So far the predictions are very good. The cosmic background radiation and redshift of light is also 2 other indications that the big bang did happen. Those 3 facts togheter strongly suggest there was a big bang. We can make modells of the big bang until we reach the planc time(10^-43s).
    We can NOT say anything about what happened in the intervall 0-10^-43s because our current understanding of physics doesnt allow us to do that. So speculating about the CAUSE of the big bang is philosophy and not science.

    Creationism isnt funded on the same rigorus foundation as the big bang theory

  20. #20
    MASTERDBOL's Avatar
    MASTERDBOL is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    moving to austin
    Posts
    1,455
    you are missing my point too.

    there is alot of guessing in your theory as well. and how it all began is the basis of this entire thread. not how it evolved afterwards. we all agree on what happened afterwards. but nobody knows how everything was created to begin with. science cant prove what happened, nor can christianity prove how it all began.

    did a God begin the big bang? possibly. you cannot say with certainty....no!
    was it a miracle somehow? science seems to think so, since it cannot be proven otherwise.

  21. #21
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    no the basis of this entire thread is if creationism is a science or not(we are realy arguing for nothing now lol since you agreed with that). A scientific theory needs to make predictions that can be tested!!
    Big bang theory can do that so it is a scientific theory that has passed most test aswell. The cause of the big bang has nothing to do with its validity as a theory.

    Creationism isnt because it predicts nothing, it makes no contribution to human knoweledge, creationism is a utter waste of time scientificly untill it does those 2 things. Thats WHY it will never be a part of a science class and if it does I will burn that school to the ground.
    That is also why evolution belong in school since it IS a valid theory that DOES make predictions and HAS been proven to be right during alot of circumstances. Do I say its impossible that it will be proven wrong? Nope I dont. Do I say it has so far been proven right alot of times? Hell yeah. Aslong as evolution is the best theory we got to explain the diversity of spieces and the chain of different spieces it HAS to be a part of every school no matter if it offends the pope and god himself.

    I never once said there is no god or that is impossible for a god to have created this universe. I myself belive in a higher power.

    Evolution btw makes NO claim on how the first life form appeared. That is the field of abiogenesis. Evolution simply tries to explain how the first life form evolved into what we have now.

    Why does evolution contradict the bible? The bible claims god created the animals, plants, humans ect ect ect. But it never specificly states that each creation was in its fully developed form right away? Except for adam and eve. I might be making a misstake now since I havent read the bible but thats the picture I get.
    Why cant the bible be interpreted as in god set things in motion in such a way that it would evolve in the way evolution describes.

    Quote Originally Posted by MASTERDBOL
    was it a miracle somehow? science seems to think so, since it cannot be proven otherwise.
    No science doesnt work that way. Science doesnt speculate in that way, science observes the universe and tries to make a mathematical modell(atleast physics) to describe the behavior and make predictions that in turn can be falsified by new experiments/observations. No one claims the mathematical models is a true picture of reality, the only claim is that they can be used to calculate reality. Since we can not make any real modell on the first moment of the big bang or what happened before the big bang it isnt science. Speculating about what was before the big bang is philosophy!!!

  22. #22
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    I dont agree with that. All major fields of science should always be in school since its the foundation of our knoweledge. If it interferes with religion so be it.

    Having it any other way would supresse scientific development in the way the catholic church did during the dark ages.
    since its not known 100% whether science is right or religion is right...why shouldnt religion be in all schools as well? "if it interferes with religion so be it" sounds like you could just throw religion out of everything and forget about it alltogether? What if you're wrong?

  23. #23
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by BeerBaron
    But if creationsim were true, shouldn't scientific facts at least line up statements in the bible? For example, the time frame the bible gives us for the earth being created.
    The bible doesnt give us a definitive time frame of when the earth was created. It gives years of peoples ages and king's reigns, etc etc, but it never makes it clear if its a timeframe that can be followed from beginning to end with no gaps. thats why there are those christians who believe in the young earth theory and those that believe in the old earth theory.

  24. #24
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by johan

    Why does evolution contradict the bible? The bible claims god created the animals, plants, humans ect ect ect. But it never specificly states that each creation was in its fully developed form right away? Except for adam and eve. I might be making a misstake now since I havent read the bible but thats the picture I get.
    Why cant the bible be interpreted as in god set things in motion in such a way that it would evolve in the way evolution describes.
    it does state that all of the animals came to adam to be named. so yes, a lot of them were in their fully developed form. microevolution does not contradict the bible. those animals that came to adam to be named could very well have "changed" little by little. BUT macroevolution fully contradicts the bible.

  25. #25
    Phreak101's Avatar
    Phreak101 is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,092
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    Seems like a great deal of people here consider creationism as a science or atleast a scientific approach.

    As far as I have seen creationists is good at one thing and one thing alone, Critisising evolution WITHOUT offering a alterantive.

    So now I want to se the ideas included in the "theory of creationism" or inteligente design or whatever you want to call it.

    1. What is the basic outlines of the theory? Like how does it explain the various stages of life this planet has seen and how does it explain the current makeup of spieces?

    There have been 6 extinction level events over the earth's history. 6 different sets of species have been eliminated by 98% or more on this planet since its inception. Metaphorically, God "created" the Universe, Earth, and everything on it, in 6 days, and rested on the 7th. Species were survivors of the events, however man is of God's image, and also the only creature that is self-aware and has cognitive ability.

    2. What is the evidence of design?

    The chain of events that led up to the creation of a being that could think, reason, and most of all, be aware of itself and conscious of the outcomes of the decions it makes is my best guess.

    3(most important). What falsifiable predictions does creationism make?

    Conservative intelligent design theorists speculate too much from the Bible, but I mesh sprituality and science so I can;t really answer this..



    Note this isnt a bash evolution thread. This is a defende creationism thread.
    Showing flaws in evolution does NOT prove creationism, just as showing flaws in theory of relativity doesnt prove that god is pulling in all matter.
    Check out "What the BLEEP do we know" at blockbuster sometime, it goes along the lines of a more open minded approach to creative design mixed with science. Really great documentary/movie

  26. #26
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by PHREAK101
    ...a being that could think, reason, and most of all, be aware of itself and conscious of the outcomes of the decions it makes is my best guess.
    to me, this is just as strong an arguement for creation than some experiment performed in a lab is for evolution.

  27. #27
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    Seems like a great deal of people here consider creationism as a science or atleast a scientific approach.

    As far as I have seen creationists is good at one thing and one thing alone, Critisising evolution WITHOUT offering a alterantive.

    So now I want to se the ideas included in the "theory of creationism" or inteligente design or whatever you want to call it.

    1. What is the basic outlines of the theory? Like how does it explain the various stages of life this planet has seen and how does it explain the current makeup of spieces?

    2. What is the evidence of design?

    3(most important). What falsifiable predictions does creationism make?



    Note this isnt a bash evolution thread. This is a defende creationism thread.
    Showing flaws in evolution does NOT prove creationism, just as showing flaws in theory of relativity doesnt prove that god is pulling in all matter.


    If macro evolution is seemingly impossible, then we must look for other explanations for our existence. Intelligent design offers a good explanation.

  28. #28
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    well the thing is some theories are proven so many times that they are almost 100% foolproof. True we can never know if our theories are "right", we can only tell how much of nature we can predict with them. Newtons mechanics predicts all non relativistic and non quantum effects to a degree that is so good that one might aswell say the laws and equations ARE correct. Same with maxwells equations. So the desicion on those theories are unanimous.
    I dont know how you define factual, but its surely a safe bet to go with the theories that have withstood the test of time over and over again. If they explain nature in a satisfying way and make predictions that can experimentialy be verified they are correct.

    Now to turn it back to creationism. What predictions does creationism make? What is the basis for the theory ect.

    I hate to se people think that creationism is a scientific alternative to evolution because it ISNT. Intelligente design isnt even a theory, its just pure unfalsifiable speculation and THAT is why it should NEVER be in any science class. It belongs in religion and philosophie not in science.

    Thats why I started this thread, to se if my view is wrong and to se if intelligent design acctualy is a falsifiable theory. If it isnt then I hope people atleast will understand why it has no place in scientific debates.

    you can not compere big bang theory with creationism. The big bang theory is "just" a theory sure, but it has made alot of predictions that have been verified so far. So has evolution.
    One example of a prediction from evolution is that darwin(or some other famous biolog cant remember who) predicted the characteristics of specific spieces of insect(I think it was a insect) that had not been found yet, based on the vegiation in a area. When he examined the area sure enough he found the predicted insect.


    Evolution is a dying theory.

    By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.
    Fuz earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry from Ohio University. He was a Presidential Scholar, elected to two honor societies and twice winner of the Donald Clippinger Research Award.


    A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the Cambrian Explosion.1

    Based on fossils found in southern China and in the Burgess Shale deposits of the Canadian Rockies, biologists know that nearly all the animal phyla (more than 70) known to exist throughout the earth’s history appeared essentially at once about 540 million years ago.2 (Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism’s body plan, or architectural make-up.)

    This event, known as the Cambrian “Explosion”, occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time (~5-10 million years based on western scientific literature and less than 3 million years based on Chinese scientific literature).3 Since then, arguably no new animal phyla have appeared. In fact, about 40 animal phyla have disappeared since that time.


    Here is another recent article

    By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.
    Fuz earned his Ph.D. in Chemistry from Ohio University. He was a Presidential Scholar, elected to two honor societies and twice winner of the Donald Clippinger Research Award.


    Two related studies recently reported by an international team from Stanford University, University of California at Berkeley, and Oxford University add to the growing weight of evidence supporting a recent origin of humanity that is in line with the biblical date. 1,2

    Numerous Y chromosome sequence studies have already demonstrated a recent origin of humanity.3 This technique assumes a common ancestor for all human males and that the DNA sequence differences in the Y chromosome result from mutations. Knowing the mutation rate allows an estimate of the time when humanity originated. Y chromosome analysis is a particularly “clean” technique since: 1) long stretches of the Y chromosome do not recombine; 2) the Y chromosome displays single-parent inheritance; and 3) it is thought that the Y chromosome undergoes relatively rapid mutational change. In spite of these strengths, this technique is still in its “infancy” with much room to become more robust.

    Enter the two new studies. The research teams identified new sequence variations in the Y chromosome. This finding allowed them to expand the region of the Y chromosome available for defining human origins.4 With a larger sample size and longer sequence along the Y chromosome available for analysis, the two teams measured humanity’s origin to occur around 50,000 years ago. Moreover, they noted what appears to be a rapid and substantial growth in the number of human sub-populations (based on Y chromosome “types”) and a significant population expansion around 28,000 years ago consistent with Genesis 10 and 11.

    It is exciting that as the Y chromosomal methodologies become more sound, they reflect consistency with the results of earlier studies and with the biblical account of humanity’s origin and spread around the world.

  29. #29
    books555's Avatar
    books555 is offline Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    1,679
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    no simply because teaching evolution has a purpose while prayer doesnt(from a knoweledge point of view).

    Tell me in what way prayer advances knoweledge and you would have a point.

    School should be a place to gain knoweledge without religious interferance.

    If God exists, then prayer is of far more importance than we can possibly imagine. God is personal, and relates to us personally through the second person of the trinity.

  30. #30
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by books555
    If macro evolution is seemingly impossible, then we must look for other explanations for our existence. Intelligent design offers a good explanation.
    Seems like only the creationists have the oppinion that macro evolution is impossible. But lets not get into that in this thread.

    The poin is intelligent designs doesnt offer a good explanation. Intelligent design offers nothing at all to human knoweledge as a whole. It makes no predictions and cant explain the diversity of spieces ect.

    If evoluton experts suddenly started claiming that the gaps in the fossile records are because a advanced alien spieces are doing genetic enginering on the animals on earth and that they kidnapped whole spieces and removed them from the planet would you think "ahhh now evolution makes alot of sense"??
    Intelligent design makes a similar argument(about outside influence on earthly life) and still you feel scientiscts should accept it

    Quote Originally Posted by max2extreme
    since its not known 100% whether science is right or religion is right...why shouldnt religion be in all schools as well? "if it interferes with religion so be it" sounds like you could just throw religion out of everything and forget about it alltogether? What if you're wrong?
    I said in a earlier post that I feel religion has a equaly justified place in school as evolution. I wholeheartedly agree with the way its done in swedish school where maths, swedish, english, history and religion is core subjects that everyone has to take.
    But religion should have no influence on the science subjects.

  31. #31
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    books pls refrain from evolution bashing we have seen that in a million of threads. This is a thread to se if creationism can stand on its own as a valid theory or of its just speculation.

    Phreak I will respond later on today my internet doesnt work properly right now

  32. #32
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    Quote Originally Posted by johan
    But religion should have no influence on the science subjects.
    i agree...religion shouldnt be in science books unless the point of the science lesson is to prove away religion, in which case it should present both sides equally.

  33. #33
    max2extreme's Avatar
    max2extreme is offline Anabolic Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    2,982
    btw, i dont believe creationalism is a science, but as i stated before, i think science and religion work together.

  34. #34
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    so max you would like to se evolution removed from science classes but not replace it with anything?

    I belive science and religion while not working togheter they can both fill in "blanks" in the other view. Religion can be a good philosophical complement to science kind of. But I belive that when science contradicts religion religion always have to bow down.

    Only one religion agress with that btw and its buddhism.

  35. #35
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Al-Sajadah 32: 7 - 9, the Qur'an has referred to three different stages involved in the creation of man in such words that a slightly varied version of 'evolution' may be derived from it. The Qur'an says:

    He, Who perfected everything that He created - He started the creation of man from clay then he inculcated in him [i.e. man] the potential to reproduce through a drop of humble fluid then He embellished and fashioned him in due proportion; and breathed into him of His spirit and [thereby] developed in you [the abilities of] listening, vision and feeling.

    1 - Man's creation, in the first stage, was initiated by the production of a like species from the earth. In this stage, a number of near-human pairs - male and female - were produced directly from the earth.

    2 - In the second stage, the near-human pairs were inculcated with the ability of reproducing life through sexual interaction between the male and the female gender of the species.

    3 - In the third stage, one of the directly produced pairs (as in the first stage)[4] - i.e. Adam and Eve - were physically fashioned into due proportion and were inculcated with the advanced human abilities. It was at this stage that Adam and Eve became complete humans.

    4 - Over subsequent centuries, the other directly produced pairs (in the first stage) and their offspring became extinct. The only pair that survived, through its offspring was that of Adam and Eve.

    5 - The whole human race that populates the planet is the offspring of the one directly produced pair, which was physically fashioned into due proportion and inculcated with the advanced human faculties.

    http://www.understanding-islam.com/r...estion&qid=255

  36. #36
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Evolution cannot describe the first cause.

    What started the process of "evolution" according to people that belive in evolution?

    There has to be a first cause. Evolution theories have not been able to answer that question. That is why evolution is totally not complete.

    And can life be created from non-living material?

    Who created the first form of life. For evolution to being, there has to be the first living thing.

  37. #37
    CAUSASIAN's Avatar
    CAUSASIAN is offline Banned
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Chechnya
    Posts
    6,130
    Creationists belive that GOD created everything.

    Evolutionist belive that a first being is the father of all living things.

    But they cannot explain the first being, and how it came into existence.

    Back to playing computer games.

  38. #38
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    Evolution cannot describe the first cause.

    What started the process of "evolution" according to people that belive in evolution?

    There has to be a first cause. Evolution theories have not been able to answer that question. That is why evolution is totally not complete.

    And can life be created from non-living material?

    Who created the first form of life. For evolution to being, there has to be the first living thing.
    Well once again. What started evolution isnt a question needed to answere to make evolution a valid theory. Evolution is strictly a theory about how spieces develop. NOT how the first life form came about.
    That is like I said the field of abiogenesis.

    Doesnt matter if the first life form is created by a god, designed by aliens or just a random accident. Evolutionary could still be just as valid since it makes no assumptions about the creation of the first life form as far as I know.

    A analog situation...
    Maxwell put togheter the electromagnetic field theory without knowing what a electromagnetic field is or how a particle "knows" its in the field. The theory still explains the behavior of particles in fields in a very precise way.

    The question if life can be created from dead material has yet to be answered. Who knows? Certainly not scientists right now and absolutely not christians, muslims, hindus or jehovas wittnesses either.

  39. #39
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    Creationists belive that GOD created everything.

    Evolutionist belive that a first being is the father of all living things.

    But they cannot explain the first being, and how it came into existence.

    Back to playing computer games.
    Well I truly hope people wont just settle with the explanation "he did it" while pointing upp into the sky when it comes to the question of our origin.

    If the majority of people would settle for that I would be ashamed to call myself a human because when that happens our thirst for knoweledge is gone.

  40. #40
    Kärnfysikern's Avatar
    Kärnfysikern is offline Retired: AR-Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Scotty, beam me up
    Posts
    14,223
    Quote Originally Posted by CAUSASIAN
    That is why evolution is totally not complete.
    well I could dare you to find one single scientific theory that is totaly complete. Fact of the matter is that you wont find anyone. Targeting evolution simply because of that reason is not good reasoning because that would force you to dismiss all science since there are no complete theories in existance.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •