Anyone planning on going to see Expelled starring Ben Stein

[Beth in SW WA]

To the best of our knowledge at this time the universe as we know it began at a single point in time about 13.7 billion years ago. What happened before this we don't know anything about at all.

 

Coming late to this party....

 

This conversation reminds me of a "conversation" you and I had months ago on the old board. Here it is:

http://www.wtmboards.com/K8currOct152007/messages/2318.html

 

I'm enjoying this back-and-forth. Its what makes this country awesome!

 

And Phred, Did you see Karen's message to you?? I think that is so sweet. I've made many apologies on this board over the last few months. And I always feel good when I am forgiven by whomever I might have offended.

 

Happy Sunday...:)

 

And please join in on curriculum discussions sometimes.

[Kate CA]

Just an FYI, there are many creation scientists doing research. Just because you don't see it in the mainstream media doesn't mean it isn't happening. There are many highly qualified scientists that also happen to be creationists.

 

ETA: And honestly if a creation scientist discovered something that unmistakably proved the existence of God, do you really think the very *secular* media would offer it up for the world? I don't think they would.

[Kelli in TN]

Just an FYI, there are many creation scientists doing research. Just because you don't see it in the mainstream media doesn't mean it isn't happening. There are many highly qualified scientists that also happen to be creationists.

 

My college girl came over for spaghetti last night (you know those college kids can't get enough of Mom's cooking when they move out and have to eat in the caf) and we had the neatest conversation about evolution/creationism/ID. Her bio prof is a Christian but she is a believer in evolution. However, she did tell her class straight up "I am a Christian and I personally believe in evolution. However some of the scientists and researchers I most respect are believers in creationism. You will all have to decide for yourself" My dd is grappling with these things now and it is neat to see her wrestling her way through. She is a thinker and does not just accept things because Mom said so, or her teacher said so or whatever. She has a lot of respect for this prof and I can see the wheels turning as she tries to reconcile a lifetime in the church with this prof's point of view. I challenged her to approach her prof and ask for recommendations of scholarly works about intelligent design and read a work or two over the summer. She agreed that this would be a good idea.

 

So, I guess if there can be highly educated evolutionists who respect the work of researchers in the field of creation science then perhaps it is worthy of the respect of laypeople too.

 

It's just interesting to see how this is handled in a fairly liberal Christian college. I have learned through my daughter that it is handled with a great deal of respect and admiration for the "other side".

[Phred]

I agree, and I believe Stein's movie is more about freedom of speech and freedom to practice science than about anti-evolutionism. He's saying, "Stop the Censorship" and I'm wondering why the normally pro-freedom posters are suddenly in favor of censorship?

No one has advocated not allowing the movie to be shown. I'm simply advocating calling a spade a spade. When someone lies, we should point that out. If this "side" can't be shown without lying then we should say so. So far not one review has said anything other yet creationists are drooling to see this. Makes the creationist agenda pretty clear. Nevermind the truth, just get their agenda airtime.

[Phred]

Ben Stein is in favor of stopping the censorship of scientists. That's the censorship I'm talking about. Not anyone on this forum wanting to censor Ben Stein.

Name one scientist that's being censored. One. Not a scientist that's printed a book and appealed to the popular press but one that actually has evidence and has gone thru the peer review process like the rest of 'em. If you do the work you haven't been censored. What you're asking for... what all creationists are asking for is special treatment.

[Soph the vet]

[quote=

 

And it seems you've borrowed those questions haven't you? Not even the questions are original. Tell you what... next time you want me to sit down and spend time on my Sunday answering questions the least you can do is actually ask them.

 

<slam>

You are right, I did "borrow" the questions from someone who did not cite the source so I did not know where they came from but I thought they were good questions so I wanted to post them and see if I got any answers. I have them printed out as a handout I picked up at a debate.

I did not however, ask you, Phred, to personally waste your Sunday answering any of them. I put them out there for anyone to consider. You made the choice to answer them. I was certainly not trying to pass them off as original.

I am having trouble understanding why your tone is so angry and still quite arrogant. How is that "tolerant" of others? Instead you sound put upon to set the whole world straight so we all believe as you do. Nobody asked you to do that so please change your tone.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Just an FYI, there are many creation scientists doing research. Just because you don't see it in the mainstream media doesn't mean it isn't happening. There are many highly qualified scientists that also happen to be creationists.

 

ETA: And honestly if a creation scientist discovered something that unmistakably proved the existence of God, do you really think the very *secular* media would offer it up for the world? I don't think they would.

 

Are you speaking of research they are doing to try to prove creation, or research in their respective fields?

 

Yes, if a creation scientists found proof for a god? Of course it would be offered up for the world. Find the "face" of a saint in a cinnamon roll and it's all over the news the next day. You really think something like that would be suppressed?

[pixelroper]

Name one scientist that's being censored. One.

 

How is a lay person supposed to know this?:confused:

 

Not a scientist that's printed a book and appealed to the popular press but one that actually has evidence and has gone thru the peer review process like the rest of 'em. If you do the work you haven't been censored. What you're asking for... what all creationists are asking for is special treatment.

 

I respectfully disagree w/this. I find that it is often ignored. I wasn't even aware of the debate until I ended up in a predominately evangelical community. This is not to say I agree or disagree w/these theories!

 

As I understand it: the censorship comes in w/the peer review & publication end of it, not the work end. If it is a bunch of hogwash than refute it point by point and publish the refutation. Do not offer another theory to refute a theory. Is that to much to ask?:confused:

[Soph the vet]

[quote

 

The theory of life coming from non-life is called abiogenesis. It is thought that on a primordial earth very simple molecules were the first self-replicating molecules. These didn't have to be complex or what we think of as life... they were just able to make copies of themselves. Once this ability was possible it wasn't long before life would be possible. In fact, the line between life and non-life would be blurry... at what point does the replicating molecule become alive? How complex must it be? When the earth first formed it was a pretty inhospitable place and less than a billion years later it was teeming with organisms that resembled blue-green algae.

 

Didn't Pasteur(among others) disprove abiogenesis (life from non-life) long ago?

And where did that "singularity" of a universe come from that you referred to? If you tell me it has "just always been" or something like that then I could say the same thing about God. So I just don't get how evolutionists get away with it and people of faith don't.

One more question, my question:001_smile:, how do you reconcile macro-evolution with the second law of thermodynamics?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

[quote

 

The theory of life coming from non-life is called abiogenesis. It is thought that on a primordial earth very simple molecules were the first self-replicating molecules. These didn't have to be complex or what we think of as life... they were just able to make copies of themselves. Once this ability was possible it wasn't long before life would be possible. In fact, the line between life and non-life would be blurry... at what point does the replicating molecule become alive? How complex must it be? When the earth first formed it was a pretty inhospitable place and less than a billion years later it was teeming with organisms that resembled blue-green algae.

 

Didn't Pasteur(among others) disprove abiogenesis (life from non-life) long ago?

And where did that "singularity" of a universe come from that you referred to? If you tell me it has "just always been" or something like that then I could say the same thing about God. So I just don't get how evolutionists get away with it and people of faith don't.

 

 

You left this out:

 

"And now we're into evolution."

 

Didn't he make the point that up to that point, we are NOT talking about evolution? That part of it is NOT evolution.

 

I thought that was clear. ??

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

You are right, I did "borrow" the questions from someone who did not cite the source so I did not know where they came from but I thought they were good questions so I wanted to post them and see if I got any answers. I have them printed out as a handout I picked up at a debate.

I did not however, ask you, Phred, to personally waste your Sunday answering any of them. I put them out there for anyone to consider. You made the choice to answer them. I was certainly not trying to pass them off as original.

I am having trouble understanding why your tone is so angry and still quite arrogant. How is that "tolerant" of others? Instead you sound put upon to set the whole world straight so we all believe as you do. Nobody asked you to do that so please change your tone.

 

Soph, the rest of that handout is an evangelical tract of sorts inviting the "ponderer" to consider asking Jesus to be his savior. This isn't genuinely asking. This is setting up someone for witnessing.

 

Who did you think was going to answer these quesitons, Soph? Who else but those of us who hold this view? These were posted as YOUR questions. But they were not sincere questions, IMO, but "gotcha" questions. Do you truly not know the answers to these questions from your point of view? Do you truly not know the view of evolutionary theory about most of these questions?

[Storm Bay]

guy who tried to prove mathematically that evolution could never have happened. He was wrong about this...

 

 

 

I had a discussion about this with my brother, who is a physicist. He pointed out that you can do many things with math, but it doesn't prove evolution right or wrong. I read one mathematician who was trying to prove life on other planets mathematically. But one of his biggest mistakes was ignoring the fact that the majority of each galaxy is too radiactive, etc, to support life.

 

Now as for science, I have found over the years that many evolutionists are just as emotional and heated as creationists can be at times. Personally, I think science is a religion for some. btw, there was a whole other thread devoted to this subject here http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9214 If you note the poll, there are a lot more evolutionists on this board than it may seem from some of the posts. For a similar topic, there's this thread http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=9230

[Soph the vet]

Soph, the rest of that handout is an evangelical tract of sorts inviting the "ponderer" to consider asking Jesus to be his savior. This isn't genuinely asking. This is setting up someone for witnessing.

 

Who did you think was going to answer these quesitons, Soph? Who else but those of us who hold this view? These were posted as YOUR questions. But they were not sincere questions, IMO, but "gotcha" questions. Do you truly not know the answers to these questions from your point of view? Do you truly not know the view of evolutionary theory about most of these questions?

 

Pam, I honestly have those questions, with many others on a handout that I received at a debate (as stated before). They were obviously copied for the debate and maybe other things were left out (including the original source). My whole point in posting them was to get others to think about them and why these type of questions may not always be welcome in a public school setting (as in my original post). It is frustrating to have evolution presented as fact and then get "slammed" for asking questions like these. Yes, I know how I would answer these from a biblical worldview. But why is it wrong for me to ask for the answers of an opposing view for clarification? It was not as much of a "gotcha" as you may think. I do sincerely think these are good questions to scrutinize the only theory that is allowed in the public classroom. Don't we want students to search for the truth and ask why? As far as I know I have not attacked anyone regarding their viewpoint ever on this board. I have always tried to carefully word any posts so as not to offend anyone. I am mortified to be thought of as trying to be deceptive in any way, that was certainly not my intention at all, so sorry if that was how it all came across. Please forgive me.

[Phred]

if this evidence existed then we wouldn't be having this conversation at all. Evolution would cease to be referred to as a theory and become the Law of Evolution.

Theories don't get promoted to laws.

 

Now... the Theory of Evolution is one of, if not the, most heavily supported scientific theory in all of science. We know more about it than we know about gravity.

 

Here are fifty or so observed instances of speciation. The coming into our world of a brand new species.

 

General

1. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.

2. M Turelli, The causes of Haldane's rule. Science 282: 889-891, Oct.30, 1998. Haldane's rule describes a phase every population goes thru during speciation: production of inviable and sterile hybrids. Haldane's rule states "When in the F1 [first generation] offspring of two different animal races one sex is absent, rare, or sterile, that sex is the heterozygous [heterogemetic; XY, XO, or ZW] sex."Two leading explanations are fast-male and dominance. Both get supported. X-linked incompatibilities would affect heterozygous gender more because only one gene."

3. Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

4. Baum, D. 1992. Phylogenetic species concepts. Trends in Ecology and Evolution. 7:1-3.

5. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.

6. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.

7. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

 

Speciation in Insects

1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.

2. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.

Lots of references in this one to other speciation.

3. KF Koopman, Natural selection for reproductive isolation between Drosophila pseudobscura and Drosophila persimilis. Evolution 4: 135-148, 1950. Using artificial mixed poulations of D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis, it has been possible to show,over a period of several generations, a very rapid increase in the amount of reproductive isolation between the species as a result of natural selection.

4. LE Hurd and RM Eisenberg, Divergent selection for geotactic response and evolution of reproductive isolation in sympatric and allopatric populations of houseflies. American Naturalist 109: 353-358, 1975.

5. Coyne, Jerry A. Orr, H. Allen. Patterns of speciation in Drosophila. Evolution. V43. P362(20) March, 1989.

6. Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky, 1957 An incipient species of Drosophila, Nature 23: 289- 292.

7. Ahearn, J. N. 1980. Evolution of behavioral reproductive isolation in a laboratory stock of Drosophila silvestris. Experientia. 36:63-64.

8. 10. Breeuwer, J. A. J. and J. H. Werren. 1990. Microorganisms associated with chromosome destruction and reproductive isolation between two insect species. Nature. 346:558-560.

9. Powell, J. R. 1978. The founder-flush speciation theory: an experimental approach. Evolution. 32:465-474.

10. Dodd, D. M. B. and J. R. Powell. 1985. Founder-flush speciation: an update of experimental results with Drosophila. Evolution 39:1388-1392. 37. Dobzhansky, T. 1951. Genetics and the origin of species (3rd edition). Columbia University Press, New York.

11. Dobzhansky, T. and O. Pavlovsky. 1971. Experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila. Nature. 230:289-292.

12. Dobzhansky, T. 1972. Species of Drosophila: new excitement in an old field. Science. 177:664-669.

13. Dodd, D. M. B. 1989. Reproductive isolation as a consequence of adaptive divergence in Drosophila melanogaster. Evolution 43:1308-1311.

 

Speciation in Plants

1. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.

2. Hybrid speciation in peonies http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/061288698v1#B1

3. http://www.holysmoke.org/new-species.htm new species of groundsel by hybridization

4. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.

5. Butters, F. K. and R. M. Tryon, jr. 1948. A fertile mutant of a Woodsia hybrid. American Journal of Botany. 35:138.

6. Toxic Tailings and Tolerant Grass by RE Cook in Natural History, 90(3): 28-38, 1981 discusses selection pressure of grasses growing on mine tailings that are rich in toxic heavy metals.

7. Clausen, J., D. D. Keck and W. M. Hiesey. 1945. Experimental studies on the nature of species. II. Plant evolution through amphiploidy and autoploidy, with examples from the Madiinae. Carnegie Institute Washington Publication, 564:1-174.

8. Cronquist, A. 1988. The evolution and classification of flowering plants (2nd edition). The New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY.

9. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).

10. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).

11. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).

12. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).

13. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).

14. Digby, L. 1912. The cytology of Primula kewensis and of other related Primula hybrids. Ann. Bot. 26:357-388.

15. Owenby, M. 1950. Natural hybridization and amphiploidy in the genus Tragopogon. Am. J. Bot. 37:487-499.

 

Speciation in microorganisms

1. Canine parovirus, a lethal disease of dogs, evolved from feline parovirus in the 1970s.

2. Budd, A. F. and B. D. Mishler. 1990. Species and evolution in clonal organisms -- a summary and discussion. Systematic Botany 15:166-171.

3. Bullini, L. and G. Nascetti. 1990. Speciation by hybridization in phasmids and other insects. Canadian Journal of Zoology. 68:1747-1760.

4. Boraas, M. E. 1983. Predator induced evolution in chemostat culture. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

5. Brock, T. D. and M. T. Madigan. 1988. Biology of Microorganisms (5th edition). Prentice Hall, Englewood, NJ.

6. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Species usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

7. Boraas, M. E. The speciation of algal clusters by flagellate predation. EOS. Transactions of the American Geophysical Union. 64:1102.

8. Castenholz, R. W. 1992. Speciation, usage, concept, and evolution in the cyanobacteria (blue-green algae). Journal of Phycology 28:737-745.

 

New Genus

1. Muntzig, A, Triticale Results and Problems, Parey, Berlin, 1979. Describes whole new *genus* of plants, Triticosecale, of several species, formed by artificial selection. These plants are important in agriculture.

 

Vertebrate Speciation

1. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases.

2. G Vogel, African elephant species splits in two. Science 293: 1414, Aug. 24, 2001. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/293/5534/1414

3. C Vila` , P Savolainen, JE. Maldonado, IR. Amorim, JE. Rice, RL. Honeycutt, KA. Crandall, JLundeberg, RK. Wayne, Multiple and Ancient Origins of the Domestic Dog Science 276: 1687-1689, 13 JUNE 1997. Dogs no longer one species but 4 according to the genetics. http://www.idir.net/~wolf2dog/wayne1.htm

4. Barrowclough, George F.. Speciation and Geographic Variation in Black-tailed Gnatcatchers. (book reviews) The Condor. V94. P555(2) May, 1992

5. Kluger, Jeffrey. Go fish. Rapid fish speciation in African lakes. Discover. V13. P18(1) March, 1992.

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration.) See also Mayr, E., 1970. _Populations, Species, and Evolution_, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

6. Genus _Rattus_ currently consists of 137 species [1,2] and is known to have

originally developed in Indonesia and Malaysia during and prior to the Middle

Ages[3].

[1] T. Yosida. Cytogenetics of the Black Rat. University Park Press, Baltimore, 1980.

[2] D. Morris. The Mammals. Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1965.

[3] G. H. H. Tate. "Some Muridae of the Indo-Australian region," Bull. Amer. Museum Nat. Hist. 72: 501-728, 1963.

7. Stanley, S., 1979. _Macroevolution: Pattern and Process_, San Francisco,

W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.

 

 

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam, I honestly have those questions, with many others on a handout that I received at a debate (as stated before). They were obviously copied for the debate and maybe other things were left out (including the original source). My whole point in posting them was to get others to think about them and why these type of questions may not always be welcome in a public school setting (as in my original post). It is frustrating to have evolution presented as fact and then get "slammed" for asking questions like these. Yes, I know how I would answer these from a biblical worldview. But why is it wrong for me to ask for the answers of an opposing view for clarification? It was not as much of a "gotcha" as you may think. I do sincerely think these are good questions to scrutinize the only theory that is allowed in the public classroom. Don't we want students to search for the truth and ask why? As far as I know I have not attacked anyone regarding their viewpoint ever on this board. I have always tried to carefully word any posts so as not to offend anyone. I am mortified to be thought of as trying to be deceptive in any way, that was certainly not my intention at all, so sorry if that was how it all came across. Please forgive me.

 

Thanks, Soph.

 

Do you see why Phred would feel set up, though? Do you see why his tone might not have been to your liking? Don't you get why he might then seem "arrogant"? Since he actually solicited questions earlier in the thread (and I think you might have missed that post -- this thread is looooong), can't you see why he might have changed tone as he did mid-answer?

 

We see this issue sooo differently. I used to believe as you do, and I understand wanting these questions discussed in a science classroom. I no longer hold those views, but can honestly say that back when I felt as you did, my motives would not have been as pure as yours.

 

As to feeling slammed, I think both sides feel slammed. And that's too bad. These are important issues.

[pixelroper]

Theories don't get promoted to laws.

 

 

I believe I've already implied my unqualified scientific status. :blink: So by definition of a theory is just sits there until........what?

[Soph the vet]

Thanks, Soph.

 

Do you see why Phred would feel set up, though? Do you see why his tone might not have been to your liking? Don't you get why he might then seem "arrogant"? Since he actually solicited questions earlier in the thread (and I think you might have missed that post -- this thread is looooong), can't you see why he might have changed tone as he did mid-answer?

 

We see this issue sooo differently. I used to believe as you do, and I understand wanting these questions discussed in a science classroom. I no longer hold those views, but can honestly say that back when I felt as you did, my motives would not have been as pure as yours.

 

As to feeling slammed, I think both sides feel slammed. And that's too bad. These are important issues.

 

Pam, thanks for your quick and kind reply. I don't know if any of us have totally pure motives all the time but I certainly do not think a debate is worth more than another person's feeling. As for Phred, his tone has been pretty consistent through most of his posts. I think it is funny that the name Phred is a character from the Doonesbury comics known as "Phred the Terrorist". I don't know if that is intentional or not.

I agree that both sides feel slammed, but again, only one side is allowed in the classroom even though both views require faith. Thank you again for your gracious response.

Soph

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

I believe I've already implied my unqualified scientific status. :blink: So by definition of a theory is just sits there until........what?

 

It gets bandied about and discussed and nuances of it falsified and kicked and digested and regurgitated and slapped and coddled. New ideas concerning the theory are proposed, and these are cussed and discussed and measured and re-measured and mocked and challenged and approached from yet another angle. That's the scientific process. Science -- real science -- must be falsifiable. That's inherent in what makes something science vs what makes it philosophy or religion.

 

Scientists get no greater joy than when poking holes in other scientists views and arguments and theories. That's what it's all about -- not about verifying that what another scientists proposes is true, but by attempting to show that it is false.

[pixelroper]

Here are fifty or so observed instances of speciation. The coming into our world of a brand new species.

 

To my untrained eye, and armed w/the definition of species and a chart depicting the hierarchy of scientific classification. Individuals w/in a Species can breed. What does this evidence have to do with macro evolution?:blink: How do you go from fish to biped? or quadped? or what ever, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly. I'm looking for examples such as a dog to something not dog.

 

Thank you for the reference though.:)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Pam, thanks for your quick and kind reply. I don't know if any of us have totally pure motives all the time but I certainly do not think a debate is worth more than another person's feeling. As for Phred, his tone has been pretty consistent through most of his posts. I think it is funny that the name Phred is a character from the Doonesbury comics known as "Phred the Terrorist". I don't know if that is intentional or not.

I agree that both sides feel slammed, but again, only one side is allowed in the classroom even though both views require faith. Thank you again for your gracious response.

Soph

 

See, I don't feel my view requires even a bit of faith. If it did, I'd be hesitant to make any kind of definitive stand about it. Origins? Sure, that takes faith. Evolution? Not.

 

Phred's a guy. I've noticed that guys tend to be just a tad more to the point and less touchy-feely than we tend to be. I just chalk it up to testosterone. From the old board, I find he's willing to share and very consistent in his posts.

[Phred]

How is a lay person supposed to know this?:confused:

Ask. :D

 

I respectfully disagree w/this. I find that it is often ignored. I wasn't even aware of the debate until I ended up in a predominately evangelical community. This is not to say I agree or disagree w/these theories!

 

As I understand it: the censorship comes in w/the peer review & publication end of it, not the work end. If it is a bunch of hogwash than refute it point by point and publish the refutation. Do not offer another theory to refute a theory. Is that to much to ask?:confused:

Yes. It's special treatment. I spend my entire career following some stupid bugs around so I can write a paper and go thru the review process and get published. But you think that, because your paper is about God, you should get special treatment in getting your paper published. Again, a scientific theory is not just "I have a theory". A scientific theory is the convergence of several scientific hypothesis. All supported by the evidence. So when we look at over 200 years of work that have gone into where the Theory of Evolution is today and you say you only want to have your "theory" offered up alongside I say... why? What evidence do you have that your "theory" makes any sense? What papers have been published that have gone through the process that support your contention?

 

Why won't they do the work to earn their place? After all this bandying about of the term ID do you even know what the "Theory of Intelligent Design" is? I'll give you hint... neither does anyone else.

 

Boy... we're off on a merry chase aren't we?

[Phred]

Just an FYI, there are many creation scientists doing research. Just because you don't see it in the mainstream media doesn't mean it isn't happening. There are many highly qualified scientists that also happen to be creationists.

 

ETA: And honestly if a creation scientist discovered something that unmistakably proved the existence of God, do you really think the very *secular* media would offer it up for the world? I don't think they would.

I have yet to see any of it. If you could point me towards some I'd like to see it.

[Elaine]

To my untrained eye, and armed w/the definition of species and a chart depicting the hierarchy of scientific classification. Individuals w/in a Species can breed. What does this evidence have to do with macro evolution?:blink: How do you go from fish to biped? or quadped? or what ever, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly. I'm looking for examples such as a dog to something not dog.

 

Thank you for the reference though.:)

 

I have just been skimming because these discussions can become so tedious. I love your point. A dog to something else, now that would be something.

 

Until then, I happily exist in my young earth, creationist view.

 

 

Just FYI, I am not really interested in hashing anything out with anyone because, like I said, I haven't read the whole thread and Gene Simmons Family Jewels is on.;)

[Storm Bay]

See, I don't feel my view requires even a bit of faith. If it did, I'd be hesitant to make any kind of definitive stand about it. Origins? Sure, that takes faith. Evolution? Not.

.

 

Interesting. And you're not alone. Remember the poll I did about this and how many people said they believe evolution is a fact? Not that you're saying it's a fact, of course. Whereas I, and I'm bringing this up with great respect, feel that it's a leap of faith to trust radioactive dating methods based on assumptions made and the fact that the data is not always consistent, so even if someone proved evolution with links and, as someone mentioned, a big leap, I would still have to question the time element involved.

 

Anyway, all my siblings believe in evolution, although I have one brother who said he really hasn't thought or studied it enough to know what he believes. That brother is the physicist, and has never spent much time dwelling on this issue. What I think is interesting is that it's my brother with the least scientific background who is convinced evolution is a fact, not a theory. Just like David Barash, author of The Selfish Gene stated in his book. The Whisperings Within. He said, and I quote, "Evolution is a fact." That immediately made me skeptical of his abilities in science because my biology professors were always clear that it's not a fact, it's a theory, etc.

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Interesting. And you're not alone. Remember the poll I did about this and how many people said they believe evolution is a fact? Not that you're saying it's a fact, of course. Whereas I, and I'm bringing this up with great respect, feel that it's a leap of faith to trust radioactive dating methods based on assumptions made and the fact that the data is not always consistent, so even if someone proved evolution with links and, as someone mentioned, a big leap, I would still have to question the time element involved.

 

Anyway, all my siblings believe in evolution, although I have one brother who said he really hasn't thought or studied it enough to know what he believes. That brother is the physicist, and has never spent much time dwelling on this issue. What I think is interesting is that it's my brother with the least scientific background who is convinced evolution is a fact, not a theory. Just like David Barash, author of The Selfish Gene stated in his book. The Whisperings Within. He said, and I quote, "Evolution is a fact." That immediately made me skeptical of his abilities in science because my biology professors were always clear that it's not a fact, it's a theory, etc.

 

Oh, I was one who said it was a fact.

 

And your biology professors used the word "theory" differently than most biologists would use it if they didn't mean "fact." To use the term "gravitational theory" doesn't mean that a scientist doesn't fully expect an apple to fall to the ground when it lets go of the tree. Studying the theory of gravity does not negate the fact of gravity.

 

Does that make sense?

[Phred]

I am mortified to be thought of as trying to be deceptive in any way, that was certainly not my intention at all, so sorry if that was how it all came across. Please forgive me.

Done. Tell you what... Pick the three that you genuinely feel represent your thoughts. Let's discuss those.

[mcconnellboys]

I know there are several conversations ongoing pertaining to this thread, but I'm a little confused. I absolutely believe in evolution. That word means, seemingly, a ton of different things to different people. To me, it simply means that things change over time. That was originally thought to be very slowly, but now there is evidence of more rapid speciation in shorter generation species, at least under conditions of duress (Beak of the Finch, etc.)

 

What I don't understand is why that would be evidence to anyone that there is no God.... I can't imagine a stagnant God who wanted a stagnant, unchanging world.

 

I don't even understand why abiogenesis would lead one to believe that there is no God. Where I think I differ on abiogenesis is that I believe that it was God's hand that set the spark that created all life. And I believe that He has been intimately tied to all life at all times in every place since He set the spark and will continue to be thusly involved. I believe that He is the fabric of the universe.

 

Until and unless science is able to search, unfettered, for the intersection of biology, chemistry, physics, and philosophy, I'm not sure we can obtain final answers on origins that are truly meaningful....

[Phred]

I believe I've already implied my unqualified scientific status. :blink: So by definition of a theory is just sits there until........what?

Until it gets proven wrong. Otherwise it's just useful. All science is tentative in the sense that we can never know we might not find out something different tomorrow. When Einstein came up with his version of gravity that replaced Newton's. Things still fell the same way tho. Yet, we can't know that tomorrow we might find out that things fall because invisible fairies pull everything toward earth. (what a lousy job!)

[RebeccaC]

Yet, we can't know that tomorrow we might find out that things fall because invisible fairies pull everything toward earth. (what a lousy job!)

 

Well it might not be a lousy job if the pleasure centers in the invisible faeries brains are wired to go off when they drop things to earth :D

 

Sorry, I just had to post that since this thread has been so heavy ;)

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Well it might not be a lousy job if the pleasure centers in the invisible faeries brains are wired to go off when they drop things to earth :D

 

Sorry, I just had to post that since this thread has been so heavy ;)

 

Likely, pulling things toward earth would facilitate successful reproduction and would, therefore, be adaptive for said faeries.

[Phred]

To my untrained eye, and armed w/the definition of species and a chart depicting the hierarchy of scientific classification. Individuals w/in a Species can breed. What does this evidence have to do with macro evolution?:blink: How do you go from fish to biped? or quadped? or what ever, a fruit fly is still a fruit fly. I'm looking for examples such as a dog to something not dog.

 

Thank you for the reference though.:)

I could have typed this post for you. Let me take you on a little journey... and please... suspend your disbelief for a moment.

 

Let's say you have a population of dogs. They live on an island. Within that population there are mutations that take place. So perhaps the ears of a small subgroup get longer. The colors change. Size and shape change. All this is what you might call "micro" evolution. But then we have an event that changes everything. Speciation. A group within the population is caught on the other side of the island and they're happy there. They don't try to rejoin the main group. As they evolve they change so that they can no longer interbreed with the original population. Now any changes to either group can no longer be passed back and forth should the populations make contact. Yes, they're still "dogs" but they're not. Because they can't breed with each other. So they can only become more and more different. They can never become more similar.

 

That's why that list I gave you is so important. Sure, we see an island with dogs on it. But in 1,000 years what will we see? In 10,000 years? 100,000 years?

 

Evolution has several variables. Natural selection. Mutation. And time. We can see the first two. We can't see the last because we only live for a few decades. But we can see that there once were thousands of animals on the earth that aren't here today. And there are thousands of animals on the earth today that weren't here then. You don't find fossils of rabbits with tyrannosaurs.

 

Need I go on?

[pixelroper]

Ask. :D

Yes. It's special treatment. I spend my entire career following some stupid bugs around so I can write a paper and go thru the review process and get published. But you think that, because your paper is about God, you should get special treatment in getting your paper published. Again, a scientific theory is not just "I have a theory". A scientific theory is the convergence of several scientific hypothesis. All supported by the evidence. So when we look at over 200 years of work that have gone into where the Theory of Evolution is today and you say you only want to have your "theory" offered up alongside I say... why? What evidence do you have that your "theory" makes any sense? What papers have been published that have gone through the process that support your contention?

 

 

I never said I had a theory. It really sounds as though you think I do. I also never said theories were just pulled out of thin air. The burden of proof is the same all around.

 

I'm not trying to be a smarty pants, I'm trying to not get sucked into a camp of thought based on assumptions, my own or other's.

 

There are groups/individuals who feel the efforts of their labor are not getting addressed. I really think that is the issue of Ben Stein's movie. That creationists are excited is only natural. That does not mean creationism is supposed to be given special treatment or that the movie exists to promote creationism. Now I may watch it and feel differently, I don't know as I haven't even watched it yet! But I am going to watch it.

 

Ask you, "who is being censored?"?....Why are you censoring?? I do not know anyone personally who is claiming to be censored. But there are those claiming to be, that is why I'm watching the movie.

 

It is tedious and I only need one example that is not in micro evolution as I already noted the existence of evidence put forward for that. Peace:)

[RebeccaC]

Likely, pulling things toward earth would facilitate successful reproduction and would, therefore, be adaptive for said faeries.

 

:smilielol5: Well said, nough said, :leaving:

[pixelroper]

That's why that list I gave you is so important. Sure, we see an island with dogs on it. But in 1,000 years what will we see? In 10,000 years? 100,000 years?

 

 

I've been on this journey. In ps (at least three times) and again in college and yet again several times since. I still maintain a ride in the time machine might solve it. But that would be for me, I would still have to prove that my time machine ride actually occurred through time if I wanted anyone else to buy it.

[pixelroper]

Likely, pulling things toward earth would facilitate successful reproduction and would, therefore, be adaptive for said faeries.

 

 

:lol::lol::auto:

[Soph the vet]

Done. Tell you what... Pick the three that you genuinely feel represent your thoughts. Let's discuss those.

 

Ok. First of all I am not referring at all to microevolution or adaptation, only macroevolution (i.e. one species turning into another). Where is the evidence that this has ever happened or the transitional fossils in the fossil record? Or why don't we see any living thing in "transition" right now? Or documented in the past 6-10,000 years of semi-well recorded history?

 

That was three in one.

 

Another one, the obvious first cause: where did the universe that you described as a "singularity" (I get the extremely dense thing...no need to go there again) come from? Was it eternal as I would say God is? I am really trying to understand what evolutionists believe how it all got started as I have never read an answer that did not require some amount of faith.

 

Thank you for being much sweeter this time.:D

[genie]

 

Another one, the obvious first cause: where did the universe that you described as a "singularity" (I get the extremely dense thing...no need to go there again) come from? Was it eternal as I would say God is? I am really trying to understand what evolutionists believe how it all got started as I have never read an answer that did not require some amount of faith.

 

Thank you for being much sweeter this time.:D

 

"Eternal" loses its meaning when you try to think of what happened "before" the Big Bang. The nature of time itself completely changes when you start talking about a singularity with the density of our universe, compacted into a point of zero radius. Think about that... Zero radius. And it's not like it was just sitting there, floating around in space. There was no space. Everything that now exists, including what we call space, was contained within that singularity. Time is a dimension that we humans are very fond of. But it is just that, a dimension.

[Soph the vet]

"Eternal" loses its meaning when you try to think of what happened "before" the Big Bang. The nature of time itself completely changes when you start talking about a singularity with the density of our universe, compacted into a point of zero radius. Think about that... Zero radius. And it's not like it was just sitting there, floating around in space. There was no space. Everything that now exists, including what we call space, was contained within that singularity. Time is a dimension that we humans are very fond of. But it is just that, a dimension.

 

Ok, so nothing became something, exploded and became everything? I am really trying to see how that does not require faith and saying that God spoke the universe into existence is radically different from what you just proposed. I understand that time is a dimension. I will check for answers in the morning, it is late!!

[Kate in Arabia]

Let's say you have a population of dogs. They live on an island. Within that population there are mutations that take place. So perhaps the ears of a small subgroup get longer. The colors change. Size and shape change. All this is what you might call "micro" evolution. But then we have an event that changes everything. Speciation. A group within the population is caught on the other side of the island and they're happy there. They don't try to rejoin the main group. As they evolve they change so that they can no longer interbreed with the original population.

 

Just because it was in the news a few days ago....

 

Lungless 'Jabba' frog offers evolution clue

 

A frog has been found in a remote part of Indonesia that has no lungs and breathes through its skin, a discovery that researchers said Thursday could provide insight into what drives evolution in certain species.

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/04/10/frog.indonesia.ap/index.html

[Kate CA]

Are you speaking of research they are doing to try to prove creation, or research in their respective fields?

 

Yes, if a creation scientists found proof for a god? Of course it would be offered up for the world. Find the "face" of a saint in a cinnamon roll and it's all over the news the next day. You really think something like that would be suppressed?

 

I was speaking of work within their fields.

 

As for suppressed - not from everywhere of course, but would it be taken seriously? I doubt it. I don't think it would have any real "play" in the main stream media. As far as the "Mary in a cinnamon stick" kind of revelations - that is not what I am talking about. It would have to be a silver bullet kind of thing if it was going to "convince" the atheists, but I don't think God meant there to be a silver bullet kind of revelation. Where would "walk by faith" be if there were? I know that is not good enough for most atheists, but I didn't make the rules on faith. :)

 

You and I have had this conversation before and you know that I also believe that there are some things we just cannot *know* for sure. I believe that God reveals Himself in everything He made, but that belief comes from the faith He gave me too. I just cannot prove that to you in the way I think you need it to be proved. (Not that you were asking me to...) :)

[nmoira]

 

I don't think God meant there to be a silver bullet kind of revelation. Where would "walk by faith" be if there were? I know that is not good enough for most atheists, but I didn't make the rules on faith.

:iagree: So, there's no way to prove the existence of God because God wouldn't want that, because then there would be no faith; and, because God is all Omni-Omni, God can make sure that there's no way to prove the existence of God. And this jibes with science how? This is where I keep getting stuck.

[Kate CA]

I have yet to see any of it. If you could point me towards some I'd like to see it.

 

This is just a brief list of the many things going on in this field.

 

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4039/

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3511/

http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3491

Technical Journal: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/3873/98

http://www.creationresearch.org/vacrc.html

http://www.icr.org/research/

http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_papers/

[genie]

Ok, so nothing became something, exploded and became everything?

 

Well, personally I tend to believe the expansion/contraction theory, but I haven't really read up on any of the more recent discoveries since becoming a mommy almost 11 years ago. :001_smile:

 

So I don't believe that, as you say, nothing became something. I believe something has always existed (there's that pesky time reference), and it continues in a state of expansion/contraction. The universe expands until its temperature cools to the point that it begins contracting upon itself. The more it contracts, the faster it contracts, and eventually collapses in upon itself, to begin the cycle again.

 

And so you may ask, "But where did the 'stuff' come from?" I believe my answer of "Maybe it always was there" is more reliable than your answer of "God spoke it into being" because we can clearly see that the "stuff" does indeed exist, but you can not prove to me that God does. It takes far less faith to believe that the things I can see have always existed in one form or another than to believe that a god I cannot see created it. As I see it, the concept of a creator adds an unnecessary element to the equation.

 

I am really trying to see how that does not require faith and saying that God spoke the universe into existence is radically different from what you just proposed.

 

Are you really trying to see? Because if so, you could spend years studying all the observational and theoretical data that physicists have amassed over the years, so that you could understand it better, at least in deeper terms than "nothing became something, exploded and became everything". I certainly don't have as deep a level of understanding as I would like. But just because I do not fully understand all the science involved does not mean I need to attach a deity to explain it. I'm okay with saying I don't know.

 

Historically, when there is an unknown, religions create a myth to explain it. When science becomes able to explain the unknown, the myths are no longer needed. So (in my opinion, of course) the reason that what I believe is so radically different from what you believe is that deities have a way, over time, of becoming unnecessary.

[Kate CA]

and, because God is all Omni-Omni, God can make sure that there's no way to prove the existence of God. And this jibes with science how? This is where I keep getting stuck.

 

That is sort of the point. Faith is not always going to fit together with "science" but that does not mean there are no visual (or scientific if you will) signs/evidences that God created all we see. :) I think defining our terms is important too. What is the all-encompassing term "science" mean? That term is tossed around all the time as the end-all be-all.

 

Part of it is going to come down to presuppositions. I freely admit that my presuppositions are based upon God's revelation to us in His word and in the world around us. I also know that many secular scientists start with evolution as their presupposition too. There is no shortage of creationist scientists that have been removed from their jobs because they refused to conform to the evolutionist line of thinking. I personally don't think it is really even possible to approach any research on such a controversial topic as evolution/creation completely unbiased. (This is my opinion.)

 

As my signature says my whole way of viewing the world is faith-based. This is not going to fly with an atheistic worldview that only believes what can be unequivocally proved. This may sound like nonsense to an atheist.

 

The very definition from scripture of faith is "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1) I do see the evidence of His hand--I think it is all around us. I think there is tremendously convincing creationist research going on - particularly from http://creationontheweb.com. It builds my faith, but it does not define it. God does that. :)

[Soph the vet]

[quote name=genie;165761)

 

And so you may ask' date=' "But where did the 'stuff' come from?" I believe my answer of "Maybe it always was there" is more reliable than your answer of "God spoke it into being" because we can clearly see that the "stuff" does indeed exist, but you can not prove to me that God does. It takes far less faith to believe that the things I can see have always existed in one form or another than to believe that a god I cannot see created it. As I see it, the concept of a creator adds an unnecessary element to the equation.

quote]

Thank you for trying to explain your position in an open and sincere way. Either way you slice it, both of us have to have some amount of faith. So going back to my original reason for posting in this thread. Why cannot both or all theories of origins be discussed in a classroom? That is really my bottomline point related to the OP on Ben Stein's movie. Not coercing anyone to believe one theory over another but at least allow room for debate of all, as they are all faith based.

And you are right, I cannot prove to you that God exists just as you cannot prove to me that He does not. Not seeing is not adequate. I cannot see many things I rely on every day: air, thought, reason, etc.

[SnowWhite]

Name one scientist that's being censored. One. Not a scientist that's printed a book and appealed to the popular press but one that actually has evidence and has gone thru the peer review process like the rest of 'em. If you do the work you haven't been censored. What you're asking for... what all creationists are asking for is special treatment.

 

I will have to watch the movie before I can give you specifics. I doubt I will take the time to revisit this thread at that time.

 

I don't want creation scientists to get special treatment, and I don't see where I asked for them to be given any?!

[Melinda in VT]

[quote=genie;165761)

Why cannot both or all theories of origins be discussed in a classroom?

 

This might come across as snarky, so let me just be clear right up front that I am not saying this in a mean way. I am honestly curious.

 

I'm assuming here that you are talking about a science classroom. (Certainly, I don't think of any of us would argue that creationism shouldn't be taught in a comparative religion class.)

 

How do you think creationism should be taught in a science class? What topics would be covered?

[PineFarmMom]

I look forward to it. It may not be at the movies, but I'll watch it on video at least.

 

T

[Kelli in TN]

[quote name=Kate CA;165769

The very definition from scripture of faith is "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for' date=' the evidence of things not seen." (Heb 11:1) I do see the evidence of His hand--I think it is all around us. I think there is tremendously convincing creationist research going on - particularly from http://creationontheweb.com. It builds my faith, but it does not define it. God does that. :)[/size][/font]

 

Thank you for bringing it back to what it is. Faith is faith. Pure and simple.

 

Your posts have strengthened my faith this morning.

 

All the message board arguments in the world will not prove or disprove God. Even a thread of 206 replies is not enough to prove God to someone who does not believe, nor should it be enough to shake the faith of a believer.

 

Everyone gets to decide for themselves whether they will believe or not. We all have that freedom. I've tried it both ways and following hard after God has proven to be the better way for my life.

 

Kate, you are always so gracious. I wish I were more like you.

[Jackie in AR]

GO BEN! You THE MAN!!!!! I can't WAIT!

 

Tell us how you REALLY feel, Regena. :D

 

And we plan to go, too.