How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism - Page 41

***HOBBIT*** · 08-25-2005, 03:19 PM

rohirrim TR - ok - so where did life come from then?

Something HAS to come from something eh? It can't come from 'nothing' That is what you are saying.

Ok so God or some higher being created everything - where did that higer being come from?

It/he/she/whatever could not have just always been there or suddenly appear.

Because things don't suddenly appear, they have to be created :P

Right?

So going by that, Creationism is absolutely NO CLEARER.

If you think otherwise, you are turning a blind eye.

Spock · 08-25-2005, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HOBBIT

rohirrim TR - ok - so where did life come from then?

Didn't it come from that bolt of lightning that Dr. Frankenstein harnessed?

08-25-2005, 03:31 PM

Well, you are of course, assuming that God is subject to the laws of the physical universe which doesn't make much sense. If he were, he wouldn't be God, wouldn't be able to create anything, wouldn't be able to cause the flood, or anything else.
If God not bound by our universe, then he is not bound by time.

Spock · 08-25-2005, 03:36 PM

An interesting statement but it ignores the fact that our perception of "the laws of the physical universe" might be imperfect.

***HOBBIT*** · 08-25-2005, 03:40 PM

If students don't know what a theory is, then that is their problem. Evolution is not elevated over any other theory in Science.

The reason why it is singled out is obvious - religion.

Some seem to think that it goes against their religious beliefs.

We have seen a couple people in this topic state that life would be meaningless if life was random.

That is it.

***HOBBIT*** · 08-25-2005, 03:40 PM

If students don't know what a theory is, then that is their problem. Evolution is not elevated over any other theory in Science.

The reason why it is singled out is obvious - religion.

Some seem to think that it goes against their religious beliefs.

We have seen a couple people in this topic state that life would be meaningless if life was random.

That is it.

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

If a scientist sets up a lab test to proove that life can come about without intelligence and is successful, there's something wrong with him

but creationism isn't talking about just "intelligence"... it's claiming there is a being with the ability create something out of nothing... in fact, a god doesn't necessarily have to be "intelligent" at all to create (many mythologies reflect this kind of creator)... just all-powerful

a scientist creating life from nothing but basic elements and energy would be pretty impressive i think

it goes back to the original basis for the theory of evolution... we see it on a small scale and project it on a larger one... yet there is no observable kernal of "godlike" power in our world to project from

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

If a scientist sets up a lab test to proove that life can come about without intelligence and is successful, there's something wrong with him

but creationism isn't talking about just "intelligence"... it's claiming there is a being with the ability create something out of nothing... in fact, a god doesn't necessarily have to be "intelligent" at all to create (many mythologies reflect this kind of creator)... just all-powerful

a scientist creating life from nothing but basic elements and energy would be pretty impressive i think

it goes back to the original basis for the theory of evolution... we see it on a small scale and project it on a larger one... yet there is no observable kernal of "godlike" power in our world to project from

08-25-2005, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock

An interesting statement but it ignores the fact that our perception of "the laws of the physical universe" might be imperfect.

Meaning...?

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

As to why 6,000 years, there is historical documentation that backs that up. And not just the Bible either.

but is it not equally possible that is was say, 12,000 years? and, if not, why?

08-25-2005, 03:52 PM

Well, again, it depends on your worldview. I look at the evidence presented and find 6,000 to make sense.

The geneologies in the Bible add up to around 6000 if that's what you're asking.

And yes, looking around at the evidence presented, that makes perfect sense to me.

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, you are of course, assuming that God is subject to the laws of the physical universe which doesn't make much sense. If he were, he wouldn't be God, wouldn't be able to create anything, wouldn't be able to cause the flood, or anything else.
If God not bound by our universe, then he is not bound by time.

i think he is pointing out the fact that "god" would be an example of something incredibly complex and intelligent that either popped into being or always existed without any "intelligent designer" behind the event... so, if it can happen once... why not more than once?

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

Well, again, it depends on your worldview. I look at the evidence presented and find 6,000 to make sense.

The geneologies in the Bible add up to around 6000 if that's what you're asking.

And yes, looking around at the evidence presented, that makes perfect sense to me.

so it is based on the writings in the bible as opposed to any geological evidence?

that is perfectly acceptable, but once again, it is not science

08-25-2005, 03:57 PM

Well, I'm maintaining that before the universe was created, there was no time. The direct quote is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This means to me that this is the beginning of time. I know that it is a difficult subject to grasp but it is fairly well-accepted in the scientific community that time is just as integral a part of our universe as space. Therefore, if God created time, there wouldn't have to be a point where he did not exist, or a time period where he was existing before creating the universe.

08-25-2005, 04:07 PM

First thing, what you see is animals with the genetic 'equipment' to survive living while the others die. No new information is created. It is only lost. There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure.
You also see genetic mutations. In order to fill in this gap that is left when you take natural selection away as a process of evolution, evolutionist scientists have come to rely on genetic mutation, followed by natural selection, as the main process. Again, there is no evidence of this having _ever_ happened, but you rely on it to support your theory.
I have absolutely no delusions about trying to prove the existence of God. I simply state that those who believe this are no less scientific than a person who tries to explain existence on the assumption that He doesn't exist.

08-25-2005, 04:07 PM

First thing, what you see is animals with the genetic 'equipment' to survive living while the others die. No new information is created. It is only lost. There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure.
You also see genetic mutations. In order to fill in this gap that is left when you take natural selection away as a process of evolution, evolutionist scientists have come to rely on genetic mutation, followed by natural selection, as the main process. Again, there is no evidence of this having _ever_ happened, but you rely on it to support your theory.
I have absolutely no delusions about trying to prove the existence of God. I simply state that those who believe this are no less scientific than a person who tries to explain existence on the assumption that He doesn't exist.

rohirrim TR · 08-25-2005, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spock

Aliens?

forget the aliens, your'e obsessed with the aliens

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure.

what if there was one?

brownjenkins · 08-25-2005, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Acran Mern

There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure.

what if there was one?

rohirrim TR · 08-25-2005, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

so it is based on the writings in the bible as opposed to any geological evidence?

that is perfectly acceptable, but once again, it is not science

back when they were getting ready to walk on the moon they had supossed that the earth was millions years old and by using those numbers they calculated that the silt collected on the moon would be several feet deep, they then developed a boot that would act like a snow shoe so the astronauts wouldn't sink, when they actually got to the moon the silt was about a few inches

indicating that the earth is a lot younger than they had supposed

08-25-2005, 03:19 PM	#801
*HOBBIT* Saviour of Entmoot Admiral Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.) Posts: 61,986	rohirrim TR - ok - so where did life come from then? Something HAS to come from something eh? It can't come from 'nothing' That is what you are saying. Ok so God or some higher being created everything - where did that higer being come from? It/he/she/whatever could not have just always been there or suddenly appear. Because things don't suddenly appear, they have to be created :P Right? So going by that, Creationism is absolutely NO CLEARER. If you think otherwise, you are turning a blind eye. __________________ President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares!

08-25-2005, 03:36 PM	#804
Spock An enigma in a conundrum Join Date: Oct 1999 Posts: 6,476	An interesting statement but it ignores the fact that our perception of "the laws of the physical universe" might be imperfect. __________________ Vizzini: "HE DIDN'T FALL?! INCONCEIVABLE!!" Inigo: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

08-25-2005, 03:40 PM	#805
*HOBBIT* Saviour of Entmoot Admiral Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.) Posts: 61,986	If students don't know what a theory is, then that is their problem. Evolution is not elevated over any other theory in Science. The reason why it is singled out is obvious - religion. Some seem to think that it goes against their religious beliefs. We have seen a couple people in this topic state that life would be meaningless if life was random. That is it. __________________ President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares!

08-25-2005, 03:40 PM	#806
*HOBBIT* Saviour of Entmoot Admiral Join Date: Nov 1999 Location: NC/NJ (no longer Same place as bmilder.) Posts: 61,986	If students don't know what a theory is, then that is their problem. Evolution is not elevated over any other theory in Science. The reason why it is singled out is obvious - religion. Some seem to think that it goes against their religious beliefs. We have seen a couple people in this topic state that life would be meaningless if life was random. That is it. __________________ President Emeritus (2000-2004) Private message (or email) me if you need any assistance. I am here to help! "I'm up to here with cool, ok? I'm so amazingly cool you could keep a side of meat in me for a month. I am so hip I have difficulty seeing over my pelvis" - Zaphod Beeblebrox Latest Blog Post: Just Quit Facebook? No One Cares!

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Evidence for Evolution	jerseydevil	General Messages	599	05-18-2008 02:43 PM
How to teach evolution & Evidence for Creationism II	Nurvingiel	General Messages	528	08-05-2006 03:50 AM
Evidence for Creationism and Against Evolution	Rían	General Messages	1149	08-16-2004 06:07 PM

08-25-2005, 03:31 PM	#803
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	Well, you are of course, assuming that God is subject to the laws of the physical universe which doesn't make much sense. If he were, he wouldn't be God, wouldn't be able to create anything, wouldn't be able to cause the flood, or anything else. If God not bound by our universe, then he is not bound by time.

08-25-2005, 03:52 PM	#811
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	Well, again, it depends on your worldview. I look at the evidence presented and find 6,000 to make sense. The geneologies in the Bible add up to around 6000 if that's what you're asking. And yes, looking around at the evidence presented, that makes perfect sense to me.

08-25-2005, 03:57 PM	#814
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	Well, I'm maintaining that before the universe was created, there was no time. The direct quote is, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." This means to me that this is the beginning of time. I know that it is a difficult subject to grasp but it is fairly well-accepted in the scientific community that time is just as integral a part of our universe as space. Therefore, if God created time, there wouldn't have to be a point where he did not exist, or a time period where he was existing before creating the universe.

08-25-2005, 04:07 PM	#815
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	First thing, what you see is animals with the genetic 'equipment' to survive living while the others die. No new information is created. It is only lost. There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure. You also see genetic mutations. In order to fill in this gap that is left when you take natural selection away as a process of evolution, evolutionist scientists have come to rely on genetic mutation, followed by natural selection, as the main process. Again, there is no evidence of this having _ever_ happened, but you rely on it to support your theory. I have absolutely no delusions about trying to prove the existence of God. I simply state that those who believe this are no less scientific than a person who tries to explain existence on the assumption that He doesn't exist.

08-25-2005, 04:07 PM	#816
Acran Mern Guest Posts: n/a	First thing, what you see is animals with the genetic 'equipment' to survive living while the others die. No new information is created. It is only lost. There has _never_ been a documented case of new genetic information being created. Yet this would be necessary in order for us to be decended from a one-celled creature with a limited genetic structure. You also see genetic mutations. In order to fill in this gap that is left when you take natural selection away as a process of evolution, evolutionist scientists have come to rely on genetic mutation, followed by natural selection, as the main process. Again, there is no evidence of this having _ever_ happened, but you rely on it to support your theory. I have absolutely no delusions about trying to prove the existence of God. I simply state that those who believe this are no less scientific than a person who tries to explain existence on the assumption that He doesn't exist.