Giant, I see the point that you and Kickaha make about a definitive proof for God. I'm no philosopher so arguments and discussions on that level start to fly over my head. I think that it is possible to have faith and science coexist. A faith has made scientific claims, it is possible to test a fair number of those claims. Based on the tests of those claims it is possible to see if science gives support or negates the claims of that faith.
I agree that faith and science can coexist... discretely, as separate entities. They simply answer different questions.
My reasons for the acceptance or rejection of a particular religious belief system have nothing to do with my views about the scientific method, trust me.
Disseration - dissertation - I know I left it around here somewhere...
Giant, I see the point that you and Kickaha make about a definitive proof for God. I'm no philosopher so arguments and discussions on that level start to fly over my head. I think that it is possible to have faith and science coexist. A faith has made scientific claims, it is possible to test a fair number of those claims. Based on the tests of those claims it is possible to see if science gives support or negates the claims of that faith.
But the very essence of science is to constantly question, and faith has no place in that. When you put faith in God, you start from a totally unprovable assumption that is itself untouchable and then will try to interpret observations in relation to that. That is the one fallacy.
Another conflict is that science is a practical application of reason. But no proof of God is possible through reason. So you are picking and choosing where to apply reason according to how it suits the theory, which in itself automatically disqualifies the validity of the argument or evidence or any scientific theory based on either of those.
Now I can totally understand how one would believe there is more to the universe and that there is some divine order to things, and I probably believe some of that myself, but it is not a rational or provable theory and I recognize that. But saying that it is a judeo-christian god is a MASSIVE leap.
You clearly think rationally about the bible, and that is commendable, of course. But it's important to recognize that when you interpret observations through pre-determined beliefs without questioning those beliefs (which have been demonstrated to be not provable), you spend all of your time trying to make the evidence fit into the predetermined theory.
This is in STARK contrast to science, the fundamental premises of which are ever-evolving based on new observations.
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
transcendent creation event
cosmic fine-tuning
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
fossil record reversal
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
molecular clock rates
Um, I will refrain from laughing, but this comes from the "testable" model page Mr B (there is an engineering building by the name of B at my college, any relation?). First, the initial paragraph of this section claims that the theory predicts the advancement of science. Well, obviously; science can't really not advance. Second, there are chaotic events in the universe, there is observed chaos, and I don't exactly see how chaotic theory has any relevance to this at all. Thirdly, look at the list, one by one the statements of successful predictions (meaning in science those that have been tested and which experimentally appear to be true) are absurd. First the proof of a transcendent creation event! Well, that is most fortuitous because if this wasn't proven then the whole theory (which is based upon this assumption) would go to hell.. I'd really love to see the proof. Fine tuning eh? How exactly do you show fine tuning? Because we exist there must have been fine tuning? That is simply circular and misses the point entirely. I could go on, but it is a waste of time.
Ah what the hell, one more. No inorganic kerogen. Well that sort of is the definition of kerogen which is the organic precursor to hydrocarbons...
This list of successfully proven predictions is obviously not written for someone with a science background to read, but that really doesn't surprise me...
Christianity is in a unique postion, metaphysically. It makes claims that no other systems of belief make (One/many issues, etc.). Christianity is rooted in the Old Covenent, which in and of itself bears the essential elements of Christianity---salvation by Faith, order dictated by God, and so on. The story of reconcilation of man to original theism is a target often aimed at in other religions, but in the end they miss the mark. Christianity is sold as just another "religion" by its critics, but in the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, closely studied, reveals a scope that other relgions cop out of.
Now take everything you've just said here and insert "Lord of the Rings" in a fictional-book-of-the-month context in place of "Christianity", "God", and so on. See what I'm saying? Fiction, no matter how well written or how closely you idenity with it... is still fiction in the end. There's no more evidence of God's existance than there is in Odin's or Amaratsu's...
LotR borrowed heavily from myths and legends before it just as the foundations of Christianity and it's practices are "rooted" in religions now deemed pagan and mythological. Taking all this into consideration I don't see any particular reason to hold it up higher than any other work of mythology. And Odin's got the cool spear...
itself bears the essential elements of Christianity...salvation by Faith
I'm actually currently reading about the early christian debates. My understanding is that the issue of whether grace was available to everyone or only a select few wasn't determined (as in decided upon by humans) until hundreds of years after Christ is said to have lived (close to or around 1000 ce.).
AT NO POINT IS IT POSSIBLE FOR 176Lu TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE REQUIRED TEMPERATURES IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.
....right now, at any rate. (but then it is possible to accelerate decay (even if we "know" for certain the starting conditions). At any rate, it "fell out" in my first search.
I guess I'm not being very clear; at least partially, my point is that none of the creation account is "natural": trees growing in a day, light coming from nowhere, etc. Certainly not human beings being given souls. Those aren't things you are likely to observe in a laboratory. But then neither is an eternal universe, or any sort of increase in the DNA information of an organism---borrowing/damaged DNA not allowed---things that lend themselves to observation. Those sorts of things take a great deal of faith, especially when you consider scientists keep searching for order in a "completely chaotic" universe.
The bit with the radiometric dating/starlight conundrum for crationists depends on where you place your faith. Once you "know" that the universe is ancient and that time, [i]c[\\i], you-name-it are now moving at the same speed they always have, [i]and[\\i] the existence of revelation-based, all-powerfull God is [i]impossible[\\i] then creationists would appear to you to out in left field. It's basically the same for the [insert Christain perjorative/nickname here.] I'm not certain about those who want it both ways (theistic evolution, etc.) but it doesn't sound like an internally consistent position.
Ug. I'm out of time.
"If you will excuse me I [i]must[\\i] be on my way."
I'm actually currently reading about the early christian debates. My understanding is that the issue of whether grace was available to everyone or only a select few wasn't determined (as in decided upon by humans) until hundreds of years after Christ is said to have lived (close to or around 1000 ce.).
The Church (at large) is still working through certain issues, even today. A reformation every once in a while is a good thing.
Ah what the hell, one more. No inorganic kerogen. Well that sort of is the definition of kerogen which is the organic precursor to hydrocarbons..
OK, let me help you out here.
Carbonaceous substances (the decay products of once-living organisms) manifest a distinctly lower ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 than do the same carbonaceous substances that developed from inorganic compounds. Therefore, careful measurements of the carbon-13 to carbom-12 ratio in ancient deposits yield the prebiotics present on ancient earth. The surprising result of these measurements is that all carbonaceous deposits formed from once living organisms. Nitrogen decay also supports this.
So the kerogen that is found all comes from the remains of living organisms. That is what is meant by no inorganic kerogen.
Sources you ask? Of course.
Minik T. Rosing "C-Depleted Carbon Microparticles in > 3700-Ma Sea Floor Sedimentary Rocks from West Greenland," Science 283 (1999) pp674-676
SJ Mojzsis et al., "Evidence for life on earth before 3,800 Million years ago", Nature 384 (1996) pp. 55-59
John M Hayes, "The Earliest Memories of Life on Earth," Nature 384 (1996), pp. 21-22;
Manfred Schidlowski, "A 3,800 Million Year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks," Nature 333 (1988) pp. 313-318.
So maybe it is written for someone with a scientific background, and you just don't have that background.
I'm sorry, but that page is full of more pseudoscience than i have time to debunk. Basically, its starts with the idea that the Biblehas to be corect and then tries its best to fit aspects of current scientific understanding around that central premise. Along the way it twists scientific findings and really makes some incorrect statemetns. I agree with billybobsky that that list of testable hypothesis is a joke. Forget having a scientific background, how about the ability to write English. I have no idea what that list is supposed to prove. Its just a bunch of incomplete sentences. If you know the full questions I love to respond.
As a biologist I have been meaning to add to this excellent debate for awhile, but every time I had something to say some one else (usually Kickaha) has expressed it better than I could.
I have read a few of the books written by creationists and like the "testable model" link sited by Mr Beardsly find them so poorly written, so full of circular arguments, misquotes, and outright falsehoods that I can barely get through them. The problem is that most people without a science education just figure that anything that sounds scientific must be true.
As much as the bogus science of creationism annoys me, the bigger complaint I have against it is that it is obviously the establishment of religion by the state when it is required to be taught in public schools.
A good reference is the 1982 ruling in Arkansas against a state law mandating the teaching of creation science in biology classes. This ruling spells out very well why the teaching of creationism is obviously unconstitutional.
Most Christians are very ignorant of their own churches view towards evolution and when they read about the evolution vs creationism debate they just assume that all Christians would support the creationist view. But you can see from the list of plaintiffs in the Arkansas case that most mainline churches are against teaching this in schools:
Quote:
The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas (2).
While I admire Mr. Beardsley for at least rejecting the dogma of the young earthers literal interpretation of Genesis, he must realize that his view is not what people like the math teacher whose rantings started this thread would like to see taught in biology classes. Here is how the Arkansas law mandated what can be taught as creationism:
Quote:
Definitions, as used in this Act:
(a) ``Creation-science'' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.
Since loosing the Arkansas case and many others the creationists have realized they have to be much more subtle in their quest to have the biblical story of creation taught in public schools so they don't state what's to be taught so explicitly anymore, but their intent is still the same. No matter your religion, or lack thereof, you should not want creationism, intelligent design, etc taught as science.
Carbonaceous substances (the decay products of once-living organisms) manifest a distinctly lower ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 than do the same carbonaceous substances that developed from inorganic compounds. Therefore, careful measurements of the carbon-13 to carbom-12 ratio in ancient deposits yield the prebiotics present on ancient earth. The surprising result of these measurements is that all carbonaceous deposits formed from once living organisms. Nitrogen decay also supports this.
Sorry. You can't state that carbonaceous substances, define it as the decay products of once-living organisms, then state carbonaceous substances that developed from inorganic compounds. The Inorganic arising carbonaceous substances makes no sense. BTW, you are also still wrong. If by carbonaceous substances you mean compounds that contain carbon, we have direct evidence of the presence of methane (a hydrocarbon) on some of the colder moons in our solar system. These compounds can form on their own, just as we have observed the spectroscopic signatures of amino acids in nebulae.
The articles you cite have no relevance to your incorrect first paragraph. Have you ever read them or are they on your cite if need be list?
Edit: And just so you know, I read Science and Nature weekly, they are among the many journals I read every week.
Read it again. I didn't define carbonaceous substances as only coming from the decay of living organisms. I said the ones that do show isotopic ratios of carbon-13 and carbon-12. Carbonaceous substances that form apart from life do not have the same ratio. I never say anywhere that carbonaceous substances cannot form naturally. I don't know where you come up with that. The point is that the carbonaceous deposits are from life. You need an abundance of carbon compounds to have a prebiotic soup. There must be carbonaceous deposits from this soup. Is there any evidence for these deposits?
Actually that parenthetical notation is a definition, but perhaps you don't know that. Are you trying to say all carbon on earth has gone through the carbon cycle?
Edit: Who ever made the claim that there is a primordial soup, and who ever claimed that the contents of the "soup" couldn't have been recycled through the carbon cycle. Just to inform you the reason why the levels of 12C and 13C are different is because of the decay of unstable nitrogen nuclei namely 13N to 13C in fossils....
I'm going to leave the science to the scientists and address, with little hope of any reply, dmz.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Christianity is in a unique postion, metaphysically. It makes claims that no other systems of belief make (One/many issues, etc.)
I'd like to contest this and I'd be grateful if you'd expand. All religions make unique claims, so this can't really be used as evidence that Christianity is uniquely 'right' where Santeria, say, is 'wrong', surely? If you could tell me something more about these 'unique claims' then maybe we could get going.
The one thing you do mention are 'one/many issues'. 'One/many issues' are something of a speciality of Hinduism and religions of West African origin. Do you know anything about Hinduism and the way Hindus believe that God has been made flesh in many 'avatars' like Krishna and Visnu, whose feats and sacrifices mark them out as aspects of a supreme Godhead? They've been addressing this 'issue' for as many as 3,000 years before the birth of Christ and they've got the written texts to prove it.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Christianity is rooted in the Old Covenent, which in and of itself bears the essential elements of Christianity---salvation by Faith, order dictated by God, and so on.
But this is only important if you believe that we must be saved in the first place. Hinduism puts its emphasis on action instead of faith as an end in itself. There's no eternal damnation in Hindu scriptures. Problem solved. Hindusim makes assertions that Christianity doesn't. That doesn't make it any 'righter'.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
The story of reconcilation of man to original theism is a target often aimed at in other religions, but in the end they miss the mark.
Explain why and how they 'miss the mark'. Explain also why 'the reconciliation of man to original theism' is important at all, and please explain it without a final recourse to 'because that's what it says in my Book'.
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
Christianity is sold as just another "religion" by its critics, but in the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, closely studied, reveals a scope that other relgions cop out of.
Christianity has no equivalent to the Hindu principles of ahimsa, sadhana or tattva. Further, it doesn't have the terms to allow its adherents to understand the transient, illusory nature of what-it-is-to-be-alive or the idea of tapas, or 'warmth'. The carrier signal of creation, sounded at the moment all became, the syllable 'aum', is even detectable as background radiation.
Clearly, Christianity is a 'cop out' and an inferior religion to Hinduism.
Why can I not make this claim just as fairly as you make yours?
I guess I'm not being very clear; at least partially, my point is that none of the creation account is "natural": trees growing in a day, light coming from nowhere, etc. Certainly not human beings being given souls. Those aren't things you are likely to observe in a laboratory. But then neither is an eternal universe, or any sort of increase in the DNA information of an organism---borrowing/damaged DNA not allowed---things that lend themselves to observation. Those sorts of things take a great deal of faith, especially when you consider scientists keep searching for order in a "completely chaotic" universe.
Ok, we haven't observed an eternal Universe, but astronomers have very good arguements for having observed a Universe for 13 billion years-pretty good i would say. Take a look for yourself: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040309.html
DNA: The pages of science journals or filled on a daily basis with observations of how changes to DNA result in changes to form and function. Considering DNA wasn't een disoverd until 50ish years ago, I hope you don't expect us to hae samples of how chimps mutated and gained the ability to talk. However, if you accept that DNA exists, that DNA is the key molecule that defines genetic inheritance and that DNA mutates over time, isn't it logical to assume that this has been going on before our time? Just look at the tremendous evolution of species that man has been responsible for. Most of our agricultural products come from plants that have been breed to our liking. Nature did not give us Beef Steak tomatos. Nature gave us small tomatos that looked like cherry tomatos on a good day. The list goes on and on. Plants that we grow look like they do because of selected breeding. Is it so hard to believe that breeding by natural selection can have just as dramatic effects. Remember humans have been at this for only 10,000 years (I may be off on this, to lazy to fact check). Another example, antibiotic resistant bacteria-we made them and didn't take very long either. While we're on the subject of resistance, how about the evoulution of drug resistance that goes on in the body of every HIV patient? They have sequenced HIV many times. They have observed and know the mutations that cause resistance in many cases. They also know the sequences of related viruses and give a pretty compelling natural history of the evoultion of HIV and from were it comes from and even some good gueses of when. That's evolution and it all happened not too long ago and is happening right now.
Viruses, with their rapid rate of reproduction and strong selective pressure to outrun immune systems and find new hosts are a great example of for watching evoulition unfold. Thats why yoou need a new flu shoot every year and why they still can't vaccinate against a bunch of common viral illnesses.
So to get from viruses, bacteria and plants to small rodent like animals that eventually turned into bipeds arguing miles apart using electrons and photons, all you need is a little imagination as Darwin suggested. If your imagination isn't robust enough, then look at the fossil record, it can help give you some ideas.
BTW, borrowing and damaging of DNA are very important for evolution. As we sequence more genomes we are learning that the genetic differences are not that different between animals on the gene level. Humans share many genes in common with much smaller, simpler animals. It turns out that evolution doesn't just create a new gene for every new purpose, but rather recycles and plays with old ones. Think of it like a set of building blocks that can be used to make many different structures depending on how you put them together.
Believing in evolution doesn't take faith. Its simple rational and logical extrapolations. If I drop something 10,000 times and it always falls down, then I assume that it will the next time as well. I also assume that if I was around 4 billion years ago and a toasty lnewly minted planet then it also would have fallen down then as well. Its just as simple for me to beleive that evolution was happening then as it is now.
dmz, I'm waiting for you to even acknowledge my last six posts. I'd be very grateful if you'd at least let me know why you won't address any of my points. You can do this by private message if you like.
Also of note with regard to DNA, they have shown in the lab that bacteria, viruses, some simple eukaryotes can exchange DNA sequences (there is evidence that the process occurs in humans as well, the genes of transplant patients are often found in the organ that was transplanted into them and vice versa). The most virulent genus of bacteria in nature actually has the ability to uptake large strands of DNA from lysed cells and either incorporate it or break it down...
Comments
My reasons for the acceptance or rejection of a particular religious belief system have nothing to do with my views about the scientific method, trust me.
Disseration - dissertation - I know I left it around here somewhere...
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Giant, I see the point that you and Kickaha make about a definitive proof for God. I'm no philosopher so arguments and discussions on that level start to fly over my head. I think that it is possible to have faith and science coexist. A faith has made scientific claims, it is possible to test a fair number of those claims. Based on the tests of those claims it is possible to see if science gives support or negates the claims of that faith.
But the very essence of science is to constantly question, and faith has no place in that. When you put faith in God, you start from a totally unprovable assumption that is itself untouchable and then will try to interpret observations in relation to that. That is the one fallacy.
Another conflict is that science is a practical application of reason. But no proof of God is possible through reason. So you are picking and choosing where to apply reason according to how it suits the theory, which in itself automatically disqualifies the validity of the argument or evidence or any scientific theory based on either of those.
Now I can totally understand how one would believe there is more to the universe and that there is some divine order to things, and I probably believe some of that myself, but it is not a rational or provable theory and I recognize that. But saying that it is a judeo-christian god is a MASSIVE leap.
You clearly think rationally about the bible, and that is commendable, of course. But it's important to recognize that when you interpret observations through pre-determined beliefs without questioning those beliefs (which have been demonstrated to be not provable), you spend all of your time trying to make the evidence fit into the predetermined theory.
This is in STARK contrast to science, the fundamental premises of which are ever-evolving based on new observations.
The unique beauty of this biblical creation model is its ability to predict with accuracy advancing scientific discovery. This ability to predict is the hallmark of any reliable theory. By contrast, Darwinian evolution, chaos theory, and six-consecutive-24-hour-creation-day creationism fail to predict and instead contradict the growing body of data. This summary lists just 20 of the numerous successful predictions made by the Reasons To Believe model.
transcendent creation event
cosmic fine-tuning
fine-tuning of the earth's, solar system's, and Milky Way Galaxy's characteristics
rapidity of life's origin
lack of inorganic kerogen
extreme biomolecular complexity
Cambrian explosion
missing horizontal branches in the fossil record
placement and frequency of "transitional forms" in the fossil record
fossil record reversal
frequency and extent of mass extinctions
recovery from mass extinctions
duration of time windows for different species
frequency, extent, and repetition of symbiosis
frequency, extent, and repetition of altruism
speciation and extinction rates
recent origin of humanity
huge biodeposits
Genesis' perfect fit with the fossil record
molecular clock rates
Um, I will refrain from laughing, but this comes from the "testable" model page Mr B (there is an engineering building by the name of B at my college, any relation?). First, the initial paragraph of this section claims that the theory predicts the advancement of science. Well, obviously; science can't really not advance. Second, there are chaotic events in the universe, there is observed chaos, and I don't exactly see how chaotic theory has any relevance to this at all. Thirdly, look at the list, one by one the statements of successful predictions (meaning in science those that have been tested and which experimentally appear to be true) are absurd. First the proof of a transcendent creation event! Well, that is most fortuitous because if this wasn't proven then the whole theory (which is based upon this assumption) would go to hell.. I'd really love to see the proof. Fine tuning eh? How exactly do you show fine tuning? Because we exist there must have been fine tuning? That is simply circular and misses the point entirely. I could go on, but it is a waste of time.
Ah what the hell, one more. No inorganic kerogen. Well that sort of is the definition of kerogen which is the organic precursor to hydrocarbons...
This list of successfully proven predictions is obviously not written for someone with a science background to read, but that really doesn't surprise me...
Christianity is in a unique postion, metaphysically. It makes claims that no other systems of belief make (One/many issues, etc.). Christianity is rooted in the Old Covenent, which in and of itself bears the essential elements of Christianity---salvation by Faith, order dictated by God, and so on. The story of reconcilation of man to original theism is a target often aimed at in other religions, but in the end they miss the mark. Christianity is sold as just another "religion" by its critics, but in the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, closely studied, reveals a scope that other relgions cop out of.
Now take everything you've just said here and insert "Lord of the Rings" in a fictional-book-of-the-month context in place of "Christianity", "God", and so on. See what I'm saying? Fiction, no matter how well written or how closely you idenity with it... is still fiction in the end. There's no more evidence of God's existance than there is in Odin's or Amaratsu's...
LotR borrowed heavily from myths and legends before it just as the foundations of Christianity and it's practices are "rooted" in religions now deemed pagan and mythological. Taking all this into consideration I don't see any particular reason to hold it up higher than any other work of mythology. And Odin's got the cool spear...
C.
Originally posted by dmz
itself bears the essential elements of Christianity...salvation by Faith
I'm actually currently reading about the early christian debates. My understanding is that the issue of whether grace was available to everyone or only a select few wasn't determined (as in decided upon by humans) until hundreds of years after Christ is said to have lived (close to or around 1000 ce.).
Originally posted by Kickaha
AT NO POINT IS IT POSSIBLE FOR 176Lu TO BE SUBJECTED TO THE REQUIRED TEMPERATURES IN OUR SOLAR SYSTEM.
....right now, at any rate. (but then it is possible to accelerate decay (even if we "know" for certain the starting conditions). At any rate, it "fell out" in my first search.
I guess I'm not being very clear; at least partially, my point is that none of the creation account is "natural": trees growing in a day, light coming from nowhere, etc. Certainly not human beings being given souls. Those aren't things you are likely to observe in a laboratory. But then neither is an eternal universe, or any sort of increase in the DNA information of an organism---borrowing/damaged DNA not allowed---things that lend themselves to observation. Those sorts of things take a great deal of faith, especially when you consider scientists keep searching for order in a "completely chaotic" universe.
The bit with the radiometric dating/starlight conundrum for crationists depends on where you place your faith. Once you "know" that the universe is ancient and that time, [i]c[\\i], you-name-it are now moving at the same speed they always have, [i]and[\\i] the existence of revelation-based, all-powerfull God is [i]impossible[\\i] then creationists would appear to you to out in left field. It's basically the same for the [insert Christain perjorative/nickname here.] I'm not certain about those who want it both ways (theistic evolution, etc.) but it doesn't sound like an internally consistent position.
Ug. I'm out of time.
"If you will excuse me I [i]must[\\i] be on my way."
-JMH
Originally posted by giant
I'm actually currently reading about the early christian debates. My understanding is that the issue of whether grace was available to everyone or only a select few wasn't determined (as in decided upon by humans) until hundreds of years after Christ is said to have lived (close to or around 1000 ce.).
The Church (at large) is still working through certain issues, even today. A reformation every once in a while is a good thing.
Ah what the hell, one more. No inorganic kerogen. Well that sort of is the definition of kerogen which is the organic precursor to hydrocarbons..
OK, let me help you out here.
Carbonaceous substances (the decay products of once-living organisms) manifest a distinctly lower ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 than do the same carbonaceous substances that developed from inorganic compounds. Therefore, careful measurements of the carbon-13 to carbom-12 ratio in ancient deposits yield the prebiotics present on ancient earth. The surprising result of these measurements is that all carbonaceous deposits formed from once living organisms. Nitrogen decay also supports this.
So the kerogen that is found all comes from the remains of living organisms. That is what is meant by no inorganic kerogen.
Sources you ask? Of course.
Minik T. Rosing "C-Depleted Carbon Microparticles in > 3700-Ma Sea Floor Sedimentary Rocks from West Greenland," Science 283 (1999) pp674-676
SJ Mojzsis et al., "Evidence for life on earth before 3,800 Million years ago", Nature 384 (1996) pp. 55-59
John M Hayes, "The Earliest Memories of Life on Earth," Nature 384 (1996), pp. 21-22;
Manfred Schidlowski, "A 3,800 Million Year Isotopic Record of Life from Carbon in Sedimentary Rocks," Nature 333 (1988) pp. 313-318.
So maybe it is written for someone with a scientific background, and you just don't have that background.
Originally posted by dmz
The Church (at large) is still working through certain issues, even today. A reformation every once in a while is a good thing.
So then you recognize that the 'essential elements of Christianity' are simply rules concocted by normal humans.
there is an engineering building by the name of B at my college, any relation?)
Doesn't anyone here watch Mystery Science Theater?
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Ask and ye shall receive.
Here is your testable model for creation.
I'm sorry, but that page is full of more pseudoscience than i have time to debunk. Basically, its starts with the idea that the Biblehas to be corect and then tries its best to fit aspects of current scientific understanding around that central premise. Along the way it twists scientific findings and really makes some incorrect statemetns. I agree with billybobsky that that list of testable hypothesis is a joke. Forget having a scientific background, how about the ability to write English. I have no idea what that list is supposed to prove. Its just a bunch of incomplete sentences. If you know the full questions I love to respond.
I have read a few of the books written by creationists and like the "testable model" link sited by Mr Beardsly find them so poorly written, so full of circular arguments, misquotes, and outright falsehoods that I can barely get through them. The problem is that most people without a science education just figure that anything that sounds scientific must be true.
As much as the bogus science of creationism annoys me, the bigger complaint I have against it is that it is obviously the establishment of religion by the state when it is required to be taught in public schools.
A good reference is the 1982 ruling in Arkansas against a state law mandating the teaching of creation science in biology classes. This ruling spells out very well why the teaching of creationism is obviously unconstitutional.
Most Christians are very ignorant of their own churches view towards evolution and when they read about the evolution vs creationism debate they just assume that all Christians would support the creationist view. But you can see from the list of plaintiffs in the Arkansas case that most mainline churches are against teaching this in schools:
The individual plaintiffs include the resident Arkansas Bishops of the United Methodist, Episcopal, Roman Catholic and African Methodist Episcopal Churches, the principal official of the Presbyterian Churches in Arkansas, other United Methodist, Southern Baptist and Presbyterian clergy, as well as several persons who sue as parents and next friends of minor children attending Arkansas public schools. One plaintiff is a high school biology teacher. All are also Arkansas taxpayers. Among the organizational plaintiffs are the American Jewish Congress, the Union of American Hebrew Congregations, the American Jewish Committee, the Arkansas Education Association, the National Association of Biology Teachers and the national Coalition for Public Education and Religious Liberty, all of which sue on behalf of members living in Arkansas (2).
While I admire Mr. Beardsley for at least rejecting the dogma of the young earthers literal interpretation of Genesis, he must realize that his view is not what people like the math teacher whose rantings started this thread would like to see taught in biology classes. Here is how the Arkansas law mandated what can be taught as creationism:
Definitions, as used in this Act:
(a) ``Creation-science'' means the scientific evidences for creation and inferences from those scientific evidences. Creation-science includes the scientific evidences and related inferences that indicate: (1) Sudden creation of the universe, energy, and life from nothing; (2) The insufficiency of mutation and natural selection in bringing about development of all living kinds from a single organism; (3) Changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds of plants and animals; (4) Separate ancestry for man and apes; (5) Explanation of the earth's geology by catastrophism, including the occurrence of a worldwide flood; and (6) A relatively recent inception of the earth and living kinds.
Since loosing the Arkansas case and many others the creationists have realized they have to be much more subtle in their quest to have the biblical story of creation taught in public schools so they don't state what's to be taught so explicitly anymore, but their intent is still the same. No matter your religion, or lack thereof, you should not want creationism, intelligent design, etc taught as science.
Originally posted by Mr Beardsley
Carbonaceous substances (the decay products of once-living organisms) manifest a distinctly lower ratio of carbon-13 to carbon-12 than do the same carbonaceous substances that developed from inorganic compounds. Therefore, careful measurements of the carbon-13 to carbom-12 ratio in ancient deposits yield the prebiotics present on ancient earth. The surprising result of these measurements is that all carbonaceous deposits formed from once living organisms. Nitrogen decay also supports this.
Sorry. You can't state that carbonaceous substances, define it as the decay products of once-living organisms, then state carbonaceous substances that developed from inorganic compounds. The Inorganic arising carbonaceous substances makes no sense. BTW, you are also still wrong. If by carbonaceous substances you mean compounds that contain carbon, we have direct evidence of the presence of methane (a hydrocarbon) on some of the colder moons in our solar system. These compounds can form on their own, just as we have observed the spectroscopic signatures of amino acids in nebulae.
The articles you cite have no relevance to your incorrect first paragraph. Have you ever read them or are they on your cite if need be list?
Edit: And just so you know, I read Science and Nature weekly, they are among the many journals I read every week.
Edit: Who ever made the claim that there is a primordial soup, and who ever claimed that the contents of the "soup" couldn't have been recycled through the carbon cycle. Just to inform you the reason why the levels of 12C and 13C are different is because of the decay of unstable nitrogen nuclei namely 13N to 13C in fossils....
I'm going to leave the science to the scientists and address, with little hope of any reply, dmz.
Originally posted by dmz
Christianity is in a unique postion, metaphysically. It makes claims that no other systems of belief make (One/many issues, etc.)
I'd like to contest this and I'd be grateful if you'd expand. All religions make unique claims, so this can't really be used as evidence that Christianity is uniquely 'right' where Santeria, say, is 'wrong', surely? If you could tell me something more about these 'unique claims' then maybe we could get going.
The one thing you do mention are 'one/many issues'. 'One/many issues' are something of a speciality of Hinduism and religions of West African origin. Do you know anything about Hinduism and the way Hindus believe that God has been made flesh in many 'avatars' like Krishna and Visnu, whose feats and sacrifices mark them out as aspects of a supreme Godhead? They've been addressing this 'issue' for as many as 3,000 years before the birth of Christ and they've got the written texts to prove it.
Originally posted by dmz
Christianity is rooted in the Old Covenent, which in and of itself bears the essential elements of Christianity---salvation by Faith, order dictated by God, and so on.
But this is only important if you believe that we must be saved in the first place. Hinduism puts its emphasis on action instead of faith as an end in itself. There's no eternal damnation in Hindu scriptures. Problem solved. Hindusim makes assertions that Christianity doesn't. That doesn't make it any 'righter'.
Originally posted by dmz
The story of reconcilation of man to original theism is a target often aimed at in other religions, but in the end they miss the mark.
Explain why and how they 'miss the mark'. Explain also why 'the reconciliation of man to original theism' is important at all, and please explain it without a final recourse to 'because that's what it says in my Book'.
Originally posted by dmz
Christianity is sold as just another "religion" by its critics, but in the end, the doctrine of the Trinity, closely studied, reveals a scope that other relgions cop out of.
Christianity has no equivalent to the Hindu principles of ahimsa, sadhana or tattva. Further, it doesn't have the terms to allow its adherents to understand the transient, illusory nature of what-it-is-to-be-alive or the idea of tapas, or 'warmth'. The carrier signal of creation, sounded at the moment all became, the syllable 'aum', is even detectable as background radiation.
Clearly, Christianity is a 'cop out' and an inferior religion to Hinduism.
Why can I not make this claim just as fairly as you make yours?
Originally posted by dmz
I guess I'm not being very clear; at least partially, my point is that none of the creation account is "natural": trees growing in a day, light coming from nowhere, etc. Certainly not human beings being given souls. Those aren't things you are likely to observe in a laboratory. But then neither is an eternal universe, or any sort of increase in the DNA information of an organism---borrowing/damaged DNA not allowed---things that lend themselves to observation. Those sorts of things take a great deal of faith, especially when you consider scientists keep searching for order in a "completely chaotic" universe.
Ok, we haven't observed an eternal Universe, but astronomers have very good arguements for having observed a Universe for 13 billion years-pretty good i would say. Take a look for yourself: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap040309.html
DNA: The pages of science journals or filled on a daily basis with observations of how changes to DNA result in changes to form and function. Considering DNA wasn't een disoverd until 50ish years ago, I hope you don't expect us to hae samples of how chimps mutated and gained the ability to talk. However, if you accept that DNA exists, that DNA is the key molecule that defines genetic inheritance and that DNA mutates over time, isn't it logical to assume that this has been going on before our time? Just look at the tremendous evolution of species that man has been responsible for. Most of our agricultural products come from plants that have been breed to our liking. Nature did not give us Beef Steak tomatos. Nature gave us small tomatos that looked like cherry tomatos on a good day. The list goes on and on. Plants that we grow look like they do because of selected breeding. Is it so hard to believe that breeding by natural selection can have just as dramatic effects. Remember humans have been at this for only 10,000 years (I may be off on this, to lazy to fact check). Another example, antibiotic resistant bacteria-we made them and didn't take very long either. While we're on the subject of resistance, how about the evoulution of drug resistance that goes on in the body of every HIV patient? They have sequenced HIV many times. They have observed and know the mutations that cause resistance in many cases. They also know the sequences of related viruses and give a pretty compelling natural history of the evoultion of HIV and from were it comes from and even some good gueses of when. That's evolution and it all happened not too long ago and is happening right now.
Viruses, with their rapid rate of reproduction and strong selective pressure to outrun immune systems and find new hosts are a great example of for watching evoulition unfold. Thats why yoou need a new flu shoot every year and why they still can't vaccinate against a bunch of common viral illnesses.
So to get from viruses, bacteria and plants to small rodent like animals that eventually turned into bipeds arguing miles apart using electrons and photons, all you need is a little imagination as Darwin suggested. If your imagination isn't robust enough, then look at the fossil record, it can help give you some ideas.
BTW, borrowing and damaging of DNA are very important for evolution. As we sequence more genomes we are learning that the genetic differences are not that different between animals on the gene level. Humans share many genes in common with much smaller, simpler animals. It turns out that evolution doesn't just create a new gene for every new purpose, but rather recycles and plays with old ones. Think of it like a set of building blocks that can be used to make many different structures depending on how you put them together.
Believing in evolution doesn't take faith. Its simple rational and logical extrapolations. If I drop something 10,000 times and it always falls down, then I assume that it will the next time as well. I also assume that if I was around 4 billion years ago and a toasty lnewly minted planet then it also would have fallen down then as well. Its just as simple for me to beleive that evolution was happening then as it is now.