Fighting the fight

[mickoking]

Yeah, I can't stand religious fundamentalism either but dissing their beliefs will just make problems worse IMHO.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by iceman

...it's extremely unlikely that people will change what they believe.

I am reminded of C. P. Snow's "Two Cultures", a book written back in the 1950's or 1960's, about how science is divorced from popular culture.

Scientific understanding only seems to seep out into popular culture slowly if at all, if not distorted.

Most people go home and point the magic stick at the magic box and watch the moving images, such is their (including my) understanding of the technology that surrounds us.

I suspect we will always have a society where science operates at the margins but contrubutes so much to our material welfare. I think most people, and our politcal leaders, understand this.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by mickoking

Yeah, I can't stand religious fundamentalism either but dissing their beliefs will just make problems worse IMHO.

spoken like a true buddhist

[Doug]

Argo Navis, here is a direct cut and paste quote from the very web site that you have pointed to:

This is the best-documented transition between vertebrate classes. So far this series is known only as a series of genera or families; the transitions from species to species are not known.

Emphasis added.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1b.html#mamm
Change within species are well known and acknowledged by both sides; see post #22
Nuff said.

Oh yes I almost forgot to mention that Creation science had its beginings in Australia in the 1970s.
You said :

The answers in genesis people are pushing the political agenda really hard - it is a sad day if it inflitrates this country

You and others can checkout the truth of this at :
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...ut/history.asp

I know there have been quite a few posts while my one finger has typed this post, but I like to check the truth of a statement before I either accept it or reject it, like wise I try to present accurate information myself.
Doug

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Argo Navis, here is a direct cut and paste quote from the very web site that you have pointed to:


Doug

This is taken totally out of context, see:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-...rt1a.html#tran

"Species-to-species transition:
This is a set of numerous individual fossils that show a change between one species and another. It's a very fine-grained sequence documenting the actual speciation event, usually covering less than a million years. These species-to-species transitions are unmistakable when they are found. Throughout successive strata you see the population averages of teeth, feet, vertebrae, etc., changing from what is typical of the first species to what is typical of the next species. Sometimes, these sequences occur only in a limited geographic area (the place where the speciation actually occurred), with analyses from any other area showing an apparently "sudden" change. Other times, though, the transition can be seen over a very wide geological area. Many "species-to-species transitions" are known, mostly for marine invertebrates and recent mammals (both those groups tend to have good fossil records), though they are not as abundant as the general lineages (see below for why this is so). Part 2 lists numerous species-to-species transitions from the mammals."

The evolutionary sequences are evident from the cladistics of fossil forms and from the DNA record of existing forms.

This is getting pointless...

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Doug

Creation science had its beginings in Australia in the 1970s.

It's not a science.

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

This is getting pointless...

But it is increasing my post count..all I need is another 8400 to go to catch ving....

[mickoking]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

spoken like a true buddhist

Thank you

[Gas Giant (Andrew)]

I'm perplexed that the Creationist debate always centers around evolution. Reading the start of the Bible, it obviously has no basis Astronomically. The note I attach below to all my IIS messaages (not that I've posted many), says it all.

Evolution is an area of science with a lot of complexeties that makes it an easy target to attack when talking to the unitiated. Everybody, however, understands that the reason we have night and day is due to the Earth's rotation and the Sun 'rising' and 'setting'. How, then, could day and night have been created before the Sun?

[I haven't read every post on this thread; my apologies if this point has been made already].

To hell with this debate...

I want to know...

Who really killed Santa!!!!

[AstroJunk (Jonathan)]

Originally Posted by Doug

I went looking for evidence of my earlier claim of dino footprints and human footprints in Wyoming. What I have found sofar is not Wyoming, but might verywell be what I was thinking of.
I invite those interested to visit http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/giants.htm
The above link came by way of a google search for dino fossils and human foot fossils. I had no prior knowledge of this site.

doug

I'd give up on that thread of the argument - that's the Christian equivalent of the Apollo Moon hoax sites!

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/hammer.htm for a starter...

[Argonavis (William)]

Originally Posted by ariane

To hell with this debate...

I want to know...

Who really killed Santa!!!!

no one killed Santa, I mean who else could possibly be filling up my Christmas stocking???

Eureka - A Possible Solution and Compromise

MY OWN Creation Myth

I've just thought of a real good easy scientific theory that satisfies the Science lot and Intelligent Design lot both at the same time...

My reasoning goes like this....

If we postulate that there was really some instant when God created Adam in his own image, therefore wasn't God the first to set forth the precepts of the evolution of Man and also become a true creationist?

For when He took the rib from Adam, being the basic genetic fingerprint of his own make up, He modified the old version of the human body to produce a totally new (r)evolutionary track - one that has literally "spread forth and multiplied" - the creation of the first cloning and gene the human female of the species.

Think about it.

Now, as some males may already know, once the suffragette movement of the feminists and the liberated women rose in the 1970's, they began to espouse; "When God made Adam, She was only practising."

We might easily to prove from the empirical evidence - if it not as a literal fact, that;

• Human females are generally both genetically, physically and emotionally superior.
• They can endure far more pain than males
• Women have an average life expectancy about five years longer than the male of the species?
• They have all inherited the uncanny ability (when required) to wrap their "inferior" males around their little finger when required?

Another possible proof is the flood;

Didn't God allegedly cause the first major human "mass extinction" with the Noah Ark in the Great Flood to purge some of the bad behaviour traits and kept the best people for the next generation - for a better and more respectful "homo superior" perhaps?

Natural selection must have worked brilliantly then, because from this small but strong genetic pool of less than a dozen, then saved themselves by science and technological innovation - making a huge ship-worthy Ark. They used the Ark to save themselves, to then, after being for seven weeks continuously rained upon and set adrift on the waters from that flood - to go on and repopulate the world we see today.

If this postulate is indeed true, then ergo, God therefore must have been the first true evolutionist! (and probably not a bad gene therapist at that either!)


Furthermore, if we are actually in the image of God, then we must have also inherited this same evolutionary desire. As God wishes his creations to have free will and free choice, we have no choice by to learn, adapt and evolve - and to learn ones given vocation.

Volia! Creation and Evolution Myth Solved Together

NOTES :

1) Amazingly I didn't have to use much science, any old-world monkeys nor any undue need for Intelligent Design to "prove it" - yet I still keep everyone happy!

2) Isn't the scientific method, theory, deduction and reasoning just so wonderful!

: doh:

Originally Posted by Argonavis

no one killed Santa, I mean who else could possibly be filling up my Christmas stocking???

Ah! That might explain why I didn't get any presents this year...

Probably been too much a bad person...

[Dennis]

I don’t know enough about either evolution or ID, but I would like to offer a perhaps slightly different approach to the eternal search for the “Truth”, which may be flawed or otherwise, as my own understanding is only ever partial and limited by my experiences.

If you were unfortunate to receive a bang to the head that caused permanent memory loss, and prior to the blow you were either an evolutionist or a creationist, who would you now be, without that memory?

Certainly you would continue to eat, sleep, breathe, etc; your organs would continue to function; you would likely still have feelings and emotional responses as well as the ability to think. Yet, you probably wouldn’t now “have” a name, hobbies, career, etc – yet you would still be alive.

It seems that this “pulse of life” can be said to “precede” our personality, nationality, beliefs, education, etc., none of which we have or own whilst, say in our mother’s womb. It’s not until we develop and “grow up” that we become identified with, or find ourselves “owned” by a name, career, religion, hobby, lifestyle, football team, country etc. So, how much of myself can I remove before I cease to be me, or even cease to be?

• My name – John or Sue
• My nationality – Australian, French, English
• My religion – Christian, Buddhist, Muslim, Hindu, none of the above.
• My marital status – single, married, father, mother.
• My educational qualifications – awards, memories, knowledge.
• My career – scientist, engineer, welder, unemployed, shop assistant.
• My hobbies – astronomy, swimming, football, reading.
• My favourite fashion – gothic, grunge, smart casual, nudist.
• My favourite music – rock’n roll, hip hop, R&B, classical.
• My hair, teeth, legs, arms.

It seems that all these notions of:

• who we are,
• what we learn,
• what we experience,
• what we believe,
• what we remember,
• what we can repeat,
• what our birth certificate says,
• etc, etc, all came after we were born – not before.

So, if “life” permeates everything and it is through “life” we can think, reason, feel, move, eat, marry, have careers, etc. then it seems that even our highest thoughts and faculties are a sub-set of “life”.

Now, can a sub-set of a system ever “look outside of itself” and comprehend the larger system of which it is a part?

If our physical, emotional and mental existences do not cause themselves, but are just a sub-set of this wonderful universe in which we “live”, then I wonder – can we ever “know” or “describe” the “Truth” when by its very definition, this “Truth” would be outside our intellect.

That is, it appears that for there to be an absolute “Truth”, it ought to at least reflect the following attributes:

• Have always been True, because if it changed even just once, by even just a teeny weeny fraction, then it wasn’t the Truth.
• The Truth must be the same for you, me and everyone; otherwise it would only be a personal truth, a national truth, a period truth and not the absolute Truth.
• The Truth cannot be spoken – this requires a larynx, again a sub-set.
• The Truth cannot be thought – this requires a mind, again a sub-set.
• The Truth cannot be written – this requires an alphabet, paper, eyes and comprehension, all sub-sets.
• The Truth cannot be “remembered” – if we lose our memory then have we lost the Truth?
• The Truth cannot evolve; otherwise it would not be Absolute if it had to change.
• The Truth cannot be “personal” or “belong” to a religion; otherwise it would not be the Truth, just a sub-set that might be in fashion for a while – even millennia but not “for ever”.
• Truth cannot have a beginning, nor can it end; otherwise what ever came before it and what would continue to exist after it, would be “bigger” that the Truth.

So, whilst the debate continues between evolution and ID, I truly wonder if either approach has the capacity to “know” the “Truth”, as the tools and methods of each approach seem to be the intellect, observation, beliefs, experiment, ancient texts, etc. which appear to be sub-sets of the “Truth”.

Whew, I’m exhausted, but I will not be surprised if I am corrected and trust that no one feels hurt for no hurt is intended; all I wrote was some words.

Cheers

Dennis

[Dennis]

Originally Posted by ariane

>snip
Another possible proof is the flood;

Didn't God allegedly cause the first major human "mass extinction" with the Noah Ark in the Great Flood to purge some of the bad behaviour traits and kept the best people for the next generation - for a better and more respectful "homo superior" perhaps?

Natural selection must have worked brilliantly then, because from this small but strong genetic pool of less than a dozen, then saved themselves by science and technological innovation - making a huge ship-worthy Ark. They used the Ark to save themselves, to then, after being for seven weeks continuously rained upon and set adrift on the waters from that flood - to go on and repopulate the world we see today.

>snip

: doh:

Hello, Ariane

I don’t know you from a bar of soap so I cannot interpret your post in relationship to who you are, so I will just take it at face value, as written.

I struggle with my understanding of the biblical flood.

In terms of my experience, I have been to several zoos in my life and none of them claim to house every living bird, insect, animal, reptile, etc. Some zoos are very large and require separate pens to house all the creatures; otherwise they would kill each other, or the zoo keepers.

I understand that the feeding, care, maintenance and veterinary bills at these zoos are large. These creatures on the Ark would surely require husbandry, food, drink, etc, as well produce heaps of pooh and volumes of wee during their 7 week stay on board. Just imagine; 2 elephants, 2 rhinos, 2 hippo's, 2 giraffes, etc?

So, I find it somewhat difficult to reconcile the literal interpretation of the story of the flood and the ark with my common day knowledge. I even wonder if today, with all our science and engineering abilities, could we build a vessel large enough to house all these creatures, which would also hold enough food and water to sustain them for seven weeks? How long would it take to find these creatures, then transport and shepherd them into this ark?

Maybe these “events” were not literal happenings, but more akin to stories being told that help convey an important message?

Cheers

Dennis

[ving (David)]

Originally Posted by Argonavis

But it is increasing my post count..all I need is another 8400 to go to catch ving....

thanks for my first giggle for the day

[Glenn Dawes]

Originally Posted by Dennis

So, I find it somewhat difficult to reconcile the literal interpretation of the story of the flood and the ark with my common day knowledge. I even wonder if today, with all our science and engineering abilities, could we build a vessel large enough to house all these creatures, which would also hold enough food and water to sustain them for seven weeks? How long would it take to find these creatures, then transport and shepherd them into this ark?

Maybe these “events” were not literal happenings, but more akin to stories being told that help convey an important message?

Dennis

Dennis,

You have made a great observation here, which goes to the heart of this discussion. The literal interruption of the bible is filled with examples like that. The Noah’s arc story is small compared to creating the Universe and world in 7 days. The experts will tell you, over the few thousand years claimed by ID, the Earth’s human population could not have grown to where it is now, not to mention the level of diversity in the gene pool across all species, not just Man. I suppose the Creationists comeback would be God can do anything – he just waves his hands. Maybe, but it is impossible to have a rational discussion around this – you either believe it or not.

The bible perhaps was only ever intended to be a guide to how to live your life and not a natural history book.

I agree completely with Mike S’s post (#120), there is a tendency for people to start repeating themselves (I’m guilty, sometimes just re-worded). Also I see little benefit in getting to deeply into specifics. The dinosaur/man footprints are a classic. If you google this you come up with dozens of hits with them alternating between the ID and Science interruption. All of the authors boast impressive sounding titles and/or institutes – most of them unknown to me. Often we really don’t know their reliability.
If anyone is looking for a good Science/Evo site the Talk Origins one I believe can be taken seriously. It seems to be rigorously refereed by experts in each of the fields being discussed. I’m sure someone from the ID side can give their well-regarded site(s).

I have enjoyed all the posts and would like to thank everyone for opening up and I have the deepest respect for those who were willing to stick their necks out. However, I see little benefit in continuing the thread but would prefer to continue with a chat over a beer, under the stars (maybe at Kulnura?). It’s a subject I’m always happy to discuss.

Regards

Glenn

[Dennis]

Ahh, thanks Glenn, in my complete ignorance of ID I had not realised that the Bible was meant to be interpreted literally.

There was a very interesting documentary I once saw in the UK, which seemed to reveal, through archaeological digs and scripts, that several of the Biblical events had also occurred in other civilisations which flourished not only before the era during which the Biblical events were deemed to have occurred, but also on different continents where there were no trade routes or connections (according to history).

The presenter suggested that these “stories” were somehow universal to all of man kind, and were a means whereby wise men of their time could convey messages to those interested, by using analogies or stories, much like we might read a fairy tale to a young child to illustrate why it is “good” to be honest.

Cheers

Dennis

[Nevyn]

Thinking Glenn missed this the first time!

Originally Posted by Nevyn

I have to ask Glenn, what exactly are you hoping to achieve? Is it your position that only evolution should be taught in schools and not questioned at all? Dogma anyone?
What exactly, in your opinion is wrong with critical analysis of Darwinian thinking? By dismissing and not even entertaining or experimenting with the notion of 'irreducible complexity', the main point of ID, would be unscientific don't you think? If you still think it has no merit then take out 'both'* of your kidneys *how exactly did we end up with two?? Why two???


You might want o rethink or read what the Vatican really thinks http://www.catholic.com/library/Adam..._Evolution.asp



Cheers Brad