I guess you can tell that I'm phasing out of this shin-dig. When I started on these boards I opened with Psalm 53 and in retrospect I felt that was kind of harsh. I toned myself down and participated in these threads in a more reasonable and open-minded fashion for quite some time. I never came out with the full hammer of what the scriptures say about those that reject the Lord even though I had to endure listening to many blasphemies and other abominable and disgusting words of angst (and pictures) from haters. My life is about faith, and that's what it takes to understand the scriptures. Jesus said, "Unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins."

Regarding this debate; evolution verses creationism, or when you really get down to it, materialistic/scientific vs. spiritual it comes down to this. If we die and there is nothing; you win. If we die and there is the subtle hint of shimmering light that proceeds into a full-blown, glorious radiance....... you've got issues. Think about it.

My life is full - if I'm wrong, I have no regrets. Regards.

Before I start on this thread, I just wanted to say well done, Yeti. The critcism aimed at creationists is generally valid, as very little in the way of coherent arguments are offered. I haven't read the arguments yet, but at least you've got the cojones to have a shot.
No Quarter will be given.

Whoa! Talk about fast! I guess I understand how it feels Yeti - to feel like you are surrounded by the enemy. That feeling is partially why I am present mainly on this board - I feel like the world is descending into religous fundementalism and I am scared.

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so I apologize if I am repeating. But Yeti, surely you know better than this. Even if those issues I bolded could be shown to be absolutely false and baseless, that doesn't automatically mean creation is true. Disproving one theory does not prove another. However, proving a theory can go a long way to disproving another.

This isn't about winning or any of that at all. And that part about "think about it" is one of the worst things to say to someone who doesn't share your beliefs. Anyways, the problem is that many people such as yourself have come and posted the same things. They always think they have something, when in reality they don't. Then what inevitably happens is the same thing that is seeming to happen with you. People realize that their faith is their faith and no matter how hard they try, they can not make it anything greater than just faith. And eventually, as a last hoorah, preaching and a rising feeling of superiority of knowing the truth. Because it is great that your life is full, but don't fool yourself into thinking it is more-so than anyone else's on here. If it works for you, most would be happy for you. But people are much better off when they can understand that their faith is faith, and they don't require science (bad science more precisely) to reconcile their faith. You shouldn't let a few bad debates stop you from using the boards. There are plenty of topics that don't contain evolution and any other topic that doesn't support your personal views of creation in which to express and exchange ideas and beliefs. I know you enjoy those or else you would have accumulated so many posts already. You are more diligent and composed than most and it would be a shame to see you leave because of a few topics.

Hey - I would like to apologize for my emotional outbursts and for being rude. What bball said has really struck me as being profound. Faith is a personal thing. I can't convince anyone of anything, everyone has to make up their own mind. I really don't know what to say right now, but anyway I hope that someone really skilled and versed in creationism can come along and go toe to toe with you guys, I'd like to sit back and watch the fists fly - next time from outside the ring. Serious regards.

Yeti

As a Catholic, a VERY liberal Catholic, I would like to express some opinions on the remnants of Yeti's OP. I am the kind of person that will laugh at religious jokes. Anyone that watches Family Guy knows what I mean. I have been told by a Pentecostal Christian, "How can you watch that?!" Well it is funny. Even something as personal as faith, we should be able to laugh at it.

1. Not sure what exactly he meant by this, but let me try. I see no point in trying to identify a singular creation event. It is impossible to suggest a time frame for creation when not even being able to accept the age of the earth. Of course people who suggest creation happened 10,000 years ago are going to get laughed out of the building.

2. The Bible is, well, to be blunt, written by people who had little understanding of the world around them. They explained it to the best of their abilities. It is not to be taken literal. It just can't be. But even if you do desire to take it literally, nobody know how long a time period the word "day" is. It contains so much symbolism and metaphorical speech that you can't identify what, if any, of any given story is true. Just take the lessons from them. Don't try to explain them. Think about it. How would the writers of the Bible know what happened in the beginning in the Genesis accounts? And if created in God's own image, what of aliens?

3. Who cares if there are problems with abiogenesis. Or if there aren't any. Faith is faith and the beauty is that you are not obligated to explain that with science.

4. Well, there aren't any. One does not have to reject evolution to accept God.

5. Again, there are of course fossils, waiting to be found. You don't need every piece in a 1000 piece puzzle to see the picture. But the fossils that are available clearly show transition from species to species. Go outside and REALLY watch a bird. I completely see the dinosaur in them and it constantly amazes me.

6. At some point, regardless of what you believe, people were not here. That being said, where does it say that as soon as God created Earth, he created people? My conservative Pentacostal friend likes to say that God created ancient life first, but go tired of them so he allowed the prehistoric times to end and for the rise of mammals to begin. Natural selection could have just been God's mechanism for evolution, and we are just figuring it out. I, however, subscribe to a more 'hands-off' approach. Light the fire and see what happens.

7. Unexplained phenomena could be anything. Could be aliens. It is only phenomenal because it is unexplained. It is amazing how a little knowledge of how something works, can bring out the mundane in anything.

8. I am sorry I have none. I see things such as speaking in tounges as a result of conditions within the Church and the expectations of the individuals. I am not going to give a required amount of money to the chruch. I will do things that help other people. Just smiling and making eye contact with someone makes a bigger difference in the world than giving $20 in tythes.

9. People see these things when they want. Coincidences happen. I believe more in Karma and the positive energy that you put off with your thoughts and actions. For the most part, when circumstances are under our control, we create our own luck. Good things are much more likely to happen when you feel it and expect it. We are responsible for ourselves. The devil doesn't cause alcoholism or lust for another man's wife. That is just a lousy scapegoat for many. What is more likely to be the cause for getting a pay raise? Tything and praying for six months prior to the raise and being rewarded by God or that the raise was simply a coincidence? Well I say that it was a simple coincidence. If you search hard enough with a desire to see evidence of God you can make yourself believe anything. Searching for God in everyday situations and expecting his influence can result in a loss of grip and awareness with reality.

10. Not really sure at all what this refers to.

Scientific evidence of Creationism is a pretty difficult one to run with, but in the interests of keeping the thread alive, I'll pick up the baton for a while, if you like, Yeti.

The very word, evidence, suggests that we should be able to see clear signs that God created the Universe. I think it's pretty much a given that this was a one-off event, so setting camera's up in the middle of a forest to catch God creating a new species or two clearly isn't going to be of any use.

As no-one has a copy of God's fingerprint (or, the more politically correct Intelligent Designer's fingerprint) on file, it's impossible for us to dust for prints. There are no signatures, and few chisel marks to be found within DNA.

As it's also unlikely that the Intelligent Designer would leave blueprints for the Universe lying around, all we're really left with is observations that can be made of the Universe today.

In short - we're looking for signs of something that would be impossible for Nature, left to it's own devices to replicate. There are two possibilities that spring to mind.

We all know that life today is dependant on DNA. Prior to that, we suppose that Life was started with RNA, a simpler form of DNA, which, over time, became DNA.

DNA is composed of 4 basic building blocks - Cytosine, Guanine, Adenine and Thymine. RNA is also composed of 4 building blocks - three of which are the same as DNA, and Uracil replaces Thymine.

In short - without Cytosine, Guanine and Adenine it is impossible to build either DNA or RNA strands.

Guanine is fairly easy to create in a prebiotic environment - trace amounts form via the polymerization of Ammonium Cyanide. The same, however, can not be said for either Cytosine or Adenine.

As these two Scientific papers detail - neither Cytosine or Adenine are likely to form, except under the very rarest of circumstances. Both papers were written by a biochemist called Robert Shapiro - Professor Emeritus and Senior Research Scientist in the Department of Chemistry at New York University. For those who favour the idea of Panspermia, it should also be noted that Cytosine has never been found in meteorites, nor created through electric spark discharge.

As per the Prebiotic cytosine synthesis paper linked to above - "The evidence that is available at the present time does not support the idea that RNA, or an alternative replicator that uses the current set of RNA bases, was present at the start of life."

Over time, a feasible solution to this puzzling conundrum may be found. For now, however, the creation of RNA / DNA within a prebiotic environment seems to be impossible for Nature alone to achieve.

Our second impossibility goes back to the very edge of our Scientific knowledge of the Universe. The Big Bang.

Unlike other creationists, I'm not going to argue that it's impossible for something to come out of nothing. Instead, I'm going to talk about clumpiness.

The clumpiness of the Universe is key to the formation of stars. Without clumpiness, gravity would have failed to cause protostars to form. Even today we can see vast gaseous nebulaes, without sufficient density to collapse into stars.

My question is this: How does a singularity explode in a clumpy way?

Look at the pattern of the stars. There is no symmetry in their layout, no clue as to a mathematical equation that would have caused the clumpiness vitally necessary for the Universe to have form as we know it.

There is no known physical law that could account for this clumpiness. Yet, we know that it happened, because we are here. A second case that it seems is impossible for Nature to be able to achieve unaided. Sprinkled by the Intelligent Designer's hand? Maybe...

Hmm...

The bolded parts are my responses:



If you'd really like to see some of the past debates on the same subject...just go digging through a lot of the old threads.Please do not "Necro-Post" though.Some of those threads deserve to stay buried.

creationism , ID , is not science. it has no evidence . get over it already and face that fact. feelings and beliefs are not proof. the bible is not proof. just because some one else told you so is not proof. I believe in God , but am honest enough to admit there is no proof other than what I feel.

it is not science because it has no evidence , no proof. again. just swallow hard and accept that fact. Until you have evidence of God ( which there is none ) never the two shall meet. ok ?

this merry go round is getting sickening .

I feel like I just watched someone show up to what they think is a nice dinner party and instead it was a blanket party - you know, they kind where you throw a blanket over someones head and then pummel them with bats.....or rocks...or scientific facts - whatever is handy I guess

I am not trying to get attacked by anyone, or start any bad feeling back up, obviously there were mis-understandings about the fact that Yetihunter planned on following up on each of his topics, but geez!!!

I just wanted to say that if everyone here had the exact same opinion on every topic what on earth would there be to talk about? While I definitely do not agree with everything said here, I do appreciate reading and thinking about other peoples views. That is why I come here.

So Yetihunter, stick around. You put a lot of time into forming posts that are well written and interesting to read.

No need to apologize we are all fragile at times. It is also hard to not sink to such emotions when many people in this world are so filled with vile and contempt towards anything to do with God. They will attempt to make the believer feel they are wrong, inferior, or say cruel and insensitive things (sort of the like the bad preacher image they would be the first to condemn if you ask me). They might have no compassion and well no one should be forced to have compassion on others regardless of how nice that would be. To know that a few other people will inevitably be this way is not a fact that we should focus on to look at the negativity within them. Rather it is a fact to simply understand that not everyone is accepting or even willing to embrace other ideas even if they disagree with them and they might all have different reasons. It is a simple fact that if we never lose sight of we will less and less sink to their level.



Awesome to know that there are many intelligent people that not only understand but can do so while still disagreeing without any superiority complexes.

Actually, a thread I started a while ago with a poll, indicates that MOST people, especially atheists, seem to think ID and creationism ARE the same.

Yeah, go make a movie about the miserable oppression perpetrated by science. Oh wait...

I'm back in the saddle again! (To the tune of Aerosmith) I've had an epiphany!!!!!! It went off in my consciousness like an explosion and filtered through my awareness like an atomic wind. Bballs post sent me into a place of deep meditation and thought last night, and like a phoenix arising from the ashes - here I am. It is possible to reconcile God's existence and scientific study, theory, and methodology. It's so clear now, yet I was blind to it before! Cursed emotions!!!!! I hope I can break this thing down adequately. I'm at work now, so as time permits I'll post the musings and ramblings of a Pseudo-Scientist.

What do you think about the evidence for evolution? Are you just going to ignore it?

On large scales the universe is, as far as we can tell, homogeneous. Because of uncertainty when the expansion of the universe began there were tiny imperfections in it. Around 400,000 years after the big bang, matter and radiation became decoupled. At this point radiation could stream freely from the dense state of mater. Prior to decoupling the inhomogeneities (imperfections) were very tiny and likely only existed at the quantum level. Radiation prevented these imperfections from rapid collapse. After decoupling radiation no longer "shields" our universe from these small imperfections and they begin to collapse, denser regions became more dense. What we get is essentially a snap shot of the universe's initial uncertainty, blown to cosmic scales.


One also needs to account for 13+ billion years of gravitational evolution, which certainly plays a role in the local group level clustering we see in the universe today.

The universe is big, really big, really-really big! It's so big that it's almost beyond our comprehension to grasp it. Einstein's theory E=MC© accounts for the universe as a closed system. The total sum of energy in the universe is equivalent to the total mass of the universe times the speed of light squared. The speed of light being a constant in the equation yet also being a variable because the speed of light is measured as a rate - so there is distance over time but as was shown, time is variable based on the relative speed and position of the observer. M must represent mass and includes the total quantity of matter that exists in the universe. We know that the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy are going to apply to this system. If your going to explain the origins of the universe, and subsequently our "evolution" in it, you've got to come to grips with some big ideas. Energy and matter are interchangeable in this equation. So look for science to somehow be able to demonstrate this, or maybe it has already been done? We're talking beam me up Scotty on this one, or replicate me some dinner - something.

Where does God fit in this equation? There are a few possible answers.
1. There is no God - the universe made itself.
2. There is a God and he's either inside the system, outside the system, or both.
3. God is everything including the system.

I like number two. There is a God and he exists either inside the system, outside the system, or both. I think any of the three are possible, depending on the way that you look at things. I would like to begin with the assumption that he exists and is outside the system. Like the hallel hapanui theory I broke down on another thread, God had to make a place where "he was not" in order to create the matter of the universe. The problem is that in this scenario there is no accounting for the E. Unless of course the E came as a result of the collision of two infinitely dense particles, or the splitting of one infinitely dense particle perhaps. In any event, it's possible and involves divine intervention.

What if God exists and is inside the system. He could be represented as the potential, or the E of the equation, or he could exist in a realm or dimension that we cannot measure. I'm sure you know that this is theoretically possible.

What if God exists, is both inside and outside the system and represents a force that is immeasurable, or IS the force that holds all things together. He would then be the glue, or substance behind the universe, the very force that holds atoms together. This would be the E of the system, but would also allow for God to be present in another form outside the system.

Or lastly, God is everything! He is inside the system, outside the system, is the glue that holds the system together, and IS the system itself. IT DOESN"T MATTER which is true, if any of the above! I promise you that I have not gone insane.

Here's the epiphany, the unifying field of God and Science. Science does not observe the creator! Science measures and observes the creation! Science studies that which was made, not the maker. So the discussion of God, the proof or disproof of him by science is irrelevant. You can study science and still believe in God!!!! WhoooHoooo - I am free!!!!!!! So anyway, that's where I'm at now. Science can measure, observe, quantify, theorize, postulate, explore, invent, and do whatever it wants, because it's not about God, he exists outside of that which was made. Smiling happy freedom! I rest.

Yep, you can, there are plenty of Christian scientist.

So you're saying that god might exist, just that he isn't measurable. That's what every theologian has been saying for the last 2000 years. It's not evidence for god, and certaintly not evidence for creationism or against evolution.

And the entire E=mc^2 beginning had actually nothing to do with your point...

Scientific Evidence for Creationism - Creationism; the belief that God made everything. My head is still spinning so I'm going to need some time. In my mind my Creation post stands. We are the scientific evidence of creationism; as is the planet, as is the universe. As far as the workings of science, the theory of evolution, and every other obervation or theory they're moot in a sense as far as the argument is concerned. At least in my viewpoint. Science and faith may or may not be mutually exclusive, I don't know, but they definitely shouldn't be combined in my opinion. They are different, almost opposites really and that's OK. I don't need science to validate my faith, and science doesn't need my faith to validate it's methods. By the way, I love the scientific method. Anyway, the theory of evolution is still up for debate and I don't even really care anymore. I still believe that people were made and not evolved, but that's my opinion. There's still plenty of stuff to argue, like for example the age of the earth, the solar system, and evolutionary forces in general. But, I'll talk about that later.

Again,my comments in bold:

Its this poetic stuff that kind of weirds me out... How do you people come up with it, and why do you use it?


I see what you are trying to say, but E=MC^2 doesn't directly show that. In fact, the universe might NOT be a closed system. Singularities such as Black Holes, wormholes, and even the possibility of white holes may link not only to other points in space and time, but OTHER universes, either parallel in the 5th dimension, or some other kind of universe all together!
Anyone and Everyone:
If you are interested in Theoretical physics, there are a MUST:
http://www.tenthdimension.com/medialinks.php <--- Short

This is great:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html <--- A bunch of episodes, they add up to 3 hours.

For those who believe in God or don't, these are really fascinating. They will either bring you closer to God, or farer away.


Ummm.... No.
That would be true if ALL of the energy in the universe was mass. However, some it happens to be energy. Not to mention Dark Energy and Dark Matter.
What Einstein is trying to say is that Matter is made of extremely condensed energy; Even the smallest bit of matter * 386,000 ^ 2 is HUGE ENERGY.


Whether you believe in God or the Big Bang, the laws of thermodynamics HAVE to be broken. Besides the common sense aspect, mathematically sound equations go haywire when we go back to the beginning of the universe.


Good. OK, I see you understand Einstein.


Well, the Atom bomb converts Matter into Energy.(which is why Einstein was important to the project) I assume this is what you mean.



Interesting; However, if God exists outside of the System, and he interfers with the universe, you conflict with the Closed System universe.
If God exists inside the system, you break thermodynamics; The system must have a finite amount of energy and matter; God cannot create either.
OF course, I've already explained the universe may not be a closed system, so I'd believe if God exists he exists outside of the system.

OK Yeti; You came to some seriously good points here. Some stuff might be flawed, but they are minor inaccuracies.

You see, you came to the exact place where one can accept all of the scientific evidence 100%, and still believe in a flawless God!
This is why I cannot understand Atheism; It seems So pointless. This is why I've always stayed in an atheist Agnostic position: My default view on God is Skepticism, but any God such as the one you just described is out of science; Therefore, to me, the possibility of the God you described is just as likely as any other scientific possibility.
You see, God finally will make sense when you think about him the way you did. Lets see:
1. Scientific Evidence shows that the World came from a 'big bang'. However, a universal God, or a god outside the known universe could have simply started the big bang.
2. Scientific Evidence shows a world billions of years old. This is just an example of how powerful and elegant the universe your God created is.
3. Scientific Evidence shows we have Evolved. It is perfectly believable that a God could guide Evolution, as the possibility of a mutation is a RANDOM CHANCE.(Evolution is not random, but mutation is). Your God however, could guide Evolution using Quatum Physics, wormholes, and etc.

You see, when you drop the fundamentalist view of the bible, and reconize a Scientifically possible God, all of the questions and conflicts begin to make more sense.

I'd suggest you watch the PBS show on String Theory. You'd learn a LOT more about how your God could possibly work.

Cheers,
SQLserver

I know exactly what you mean, but you are wrong. We are not evidence for god.

What do you mean by that?

If faith is right, it is right by accident. That is to say that it is not a valid way to learn about our world, because it doesn't seek to explain it. Science in turn follows the evidence to expand our knowledge.

Then you are either a liar, a hypocrite, or you just don't know what the scientific method is.

Right. All you have is your "opinion", no evidence. Which is to say you have nothing. Not only do you not have any support for your own case, but the evolutionist case completely destroys your opinion.

The thing is that you don't argue. You just declare that evolution is false, that god exists, and that creationism is true. You discard all contradicting evidence. You're as believable as someone who says that they can shoot lightning bolts out of their eyes.

Here is my take on this Yeti, take it for what it's worth. I do believe the universe is vast enough to have a being we could percieve as a god. That being said, I do not believe, nor do I think it is rational to believe that a being such as that, would care one wit, about anything listed in the bible as important. To a being that advanced, that omnipotent, to care if anyone commits adultery, or covets thy neighbors wife is crazy. In addition if the universe is so vast and so amazing it didn't happen in a short amount of time, nor did our existance happen in a short amount of time. The universe itself tends towards more and higher forms of complexity and we are the result. That some on this planet cling to a two thousand year old book written by men who did not have even half the understanding that a modern person has of the workings of this world will always leave me scratching my head....

Half the understanding? Most of the modern world eats fat-filled fast food at McDonalds and watches 6 - 10 hours of television each day.

Exactly - Quantum uncertainty is the explanation that Science gives for Clumpiness within the early Universe.

Let's take a long hard look at Quantum uncertainty, and it's consequences.

Currently, the majority of Physicists believe that the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics is correct. Within this interpretation, in order for a collapse of the wavefunction to occur, there must be an observer.

Moreover, within the Copenhagen Interpretation, there is the requirement for a Cosmic Auditor - even though the role of each individual Quanta is uncertain, as a whole, the results obey those found within Newtonian Physics - such as Radioactive decay, for example. A cosmic auditor is also required to give us the results we find within the Bell inequality test - the test used to prove that the uncertainty principle within Quantum Mechanics exists.

The Quantum uncertainty principle is, far and away, the best Scientific proof of an Intelligent Designer. During the Big Bang, in order for clumpiness to exist, an Observer must have been present. The Cosmic Auditor and the Intelligent Designer are one.

To clarify this point. Most atheists believe the ID movement and the creationist movement, is the same thing. Creationism and ID are obviously different concepts. As C&D said, creationism is a religious concept and ID is a philosophical concept. However the creationist movement, and the ID movement which sprung up after the death of the creationist movement, have one agenda, get religion in schools, and evolution out.

Lets be very clear ID is a theodicy created by theologists.....which is a subset of religion......I would not call this philososphy the discipline....theologians create counter arguments and this is what ID is....it is a counter to evolutiion.........there are a few reasons but in this context the last thing religion wants to inspire is athiests and religion feels that sceince renders god extinct and of no use as science can offer explianations for the natural world....one has to keep in mind Id serves a huge function for religion in the realm of the beleiver you just have to get one to agree to validate a claim.....its called faith.....that is the crux of religion "faith' because it requires no evidence only agreement.....

some of the cleverest arguments in history are theodicys, because you can't prove them.... this IMO is ingenius when you are seeking a lifetime commitment to a cause..........It has been said by many that religion is the greatest hoax man has ever played on himself....

Are you seriously denying the fact that we have a far, far better understanding of our world than any bronze age person?

OK PEOPLE- NO. THIS IS NOT CREATIONISM. SORRY, BUT CALL YOURSELF A THEIST, OR SOMETHING ELSE. CREATIONISM IS:
Creationism is a religious belief that humanity, life, the Earth, and the universe were created in their original form by a deity (often the Abrahamic God of Judaism, Christianity and Islam) or deities, whose existence is presupposed.

AKA- Creationism is the OPPOSITE of Evolution and Science.


OK:
YetiHunter- WHY CAN I NOT JUST SAY
We are the scientific Evidence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

Look- Yeti- YOU HAVE YET TO EXPLAIN ONE PART OF LIFE THAT COULDN'T COME ABOUT WITHOUT A CREATOR.

Just saying 'lol look how amazing Creation is god made it!' DOES NOT OFFER EVIDENCE FOR GOD OR AGAINST IT.

Yeti-
1. Logically, Life and the universe provides EQUAL evidence for Evolution as it does for a God UNTIL someone can give us something that could never have happened via Evolution.

2. You claim that you still believe that life provides more Evidence for Creationism then Evolution. However, you have yet to show us an ACTUAL example. Until then, you are scientifically wrong.

3. The Opposite of Logically is Illogically- So the opposite of sentence 1 is your claim, stated in sentence 2 which is therefore illogical.

4. You say this is still logical in your mind. So, therefore, if you think that something illogical is logical, you are thinking ILLOGICALLY.
QED.


So. In a post entitled the 'Scientific Evidence of Creationism' all observations and scientific theories are Moot?


Look- RIGHT NOW, YOU ARE IN SCIENCE. Let me draw a bloody venn diagram for you.
Click to view attachment
WHETHER YOU LIKE IT OR NOT, CREATIONISM IS ATTACKING SCIENCE, AND DEALS WITH SCIENCE.
Creationism isn't a 'lol you can chooose what to believe!' NO. It's a: It contradicts with scientific FACTS and OBSERVATIONS.
Whether you like it or not, in a thread about SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE we are going to be dealing with SCIENCE.


Sigh. That's great but:
IF SCIENCE CONTRADICTS YOUR BELIEFS THEN YOU HAVE GOT A SCIENCE PROBLEM, NOT A RELIGIOUS PROBLEM.


Well, that's part of the problem. We are talking about FACTS, and you are talking about Opinion.


Oh Good. If Evolution is 100% Logically and Scientifically Sound, then those are 105%.
And I loooove the Creationist arguments for these. They are often the funniest.

Cheers,
SQLserver

What you have described is the ID movement. A rewording of creationism to counter evolution while sounding more "scientific." ID in reality is more of a deistic approach to life. I have a friend for example who believes God created the universe, created early life, and then ditched us. This is a philosophical belief, not a religious one.

perhaps yeti is saying that with all that we understand 'now' so litttle is applyed...... for as much as we tout in the US get an education few really get the type of education that turly helps with living a life with others, alot of what is taught in school for instant is useless information......... most get careers to pay the bills...i see what he is saying and I see what you are saying also....

Apparently you don't know what the observer means, as you seem to imply that the observer is a conciousness or something. The observer is just the method used to measure something, for example a photon used to fire at an electron. I suggest you read the wikipedia entry on the uncertainty principle.

It proves nothing about the existance of god.

So little of it is applied? You must be kidding...

NOT, NOT most of the Modern world. Most of America. And we've got a lot of brilliant people too- rare, but brilliant none the less.
I can't honestly believe you made that statement. Do you think that THE WORLD'S TOP SCIENTISTS ARE as dumb as a TV-watching, Junk food eating, Crackpot like, oh, say Youtube's VenomFangX?

Sigh- Irish, if you are listening, here is another case of the Expert Syndrome.(My Expert Syndrome, that is). Some random Guy thinks that the World's brilliant, passionate, top scientists and thinkers are sitting at home watching TV and junk food, and that he's outsmarting them again.

I'm ready to vomit every time I hear Intellectual being used as an insult. What we have here is indeed a War on Science: a war on passion, curiosity, intellectualism, and brilliance. It is really quite sad. Our kids are being classified as 'Nerds' if they are smart in America.
Ah well. The way things are looking, America's doomed anyways.
I personally don't care; There's the rest of the world.
The thing I REALLY am worried about is the anti-intellectualism, ChristoFascist American nonsense spreading to the rest of the world.
It would be like the Dark Ages 2.0.


SQLserver

Sql, seriously, chill out. No need for size seven font.

Shouting doesn't help anything... or further your argument.

No offense Sheri, but I'm also sick of this position.
OK. So many American schools aren't teaching the Scientific Method, Creativity, etc., and teaching 'useless facts and science and grammar and historical dates'.
Listen: It may seem to you that these things are 'useless', but these are wonderful, great things to learn.

The problem is the anti-intellectualism in America; If kids allowed each other to find these things fascinating, then they would.


I'd like to say that while there is still a good deal of anti-intellectualism in America, we still have many brilliant people. I've personally worked in the public School districts here in PA(Computer Lit. and Computer Science), and I've seen many bright and brilliant students ready to come out of schools and become Experts, what a society really needs. Here at least, there is a slight problem. We have a gifted program, and 'levels' of brightness which students are grouped into.
The Bright students get a WONDERFUL education.
the Scientific Method IS taught. Students can CHOOSE more classes in Middle school and High School. Students design their own experiments. They analyze Historical documents, write papers, and write creative writing. They learn basic computer programming. Heck, most take woodshop, which in Middle School focuses on Solution design and creation, solving real world problems, building, etc. The brightest take Algebra I in 7th grade, Geometry in 8th, Algebra II in 9th, Pre-Calc. in 10th, Calc. in 11th, and AP Statistics in 12th. However, many very bright students who excel in such can work a grade level ahead. There are numerous electives and options in high school that deal with so many things. We even have good Evolution and Age of the Earth standards; Nobody is allowed to say: 'lol against my religion!' If they do, they fail. Simple. Students are taught about Natural Selection, what a Scientific Theory actually means, and how many dating methods and the age of the Earth work.(Not to mention a long unit on Evidence of Evolution)

Anyway- that's what the gifted and brightest students get. And as they are often grouped together, they don't experience anti-intellectualism' as much.(IE- they won't get beat up for being a 'nerd', as those who would beat them up barely know them) They are the ones going on, and innovating and thinking.
The teachers are ENTHUSIASTIC about these students. They get the best.

However, the average or below average students get only a semi-decent Education, but often are restricted, not allowed to do as much, do not do as many experiments or creative things, or have as much fun learning. This is the problem; 'low-level' students are being held back just because they performed badly on a few tests. They are demotivated by impassionate teachers and such.

Anyway, that's how it is here. However, we have some pretty good schools here compared to the rest of the country.
-SQLserver


I had something important to say. I wanted to make sure that YetiHunter didn't miss it.

Interesting. You're suggesting that the person who has a link to Schrodinger's Cat in his forum signature for the past couple of years doesn't understand what the uncertainty principle is. That's quite possibly the worst attempt at a Ad Hominem attack I've ever seen.

You're espousing something called the objective collapse theory - a theory that would require a extension to standard quantum mechanics to explain the mechanism of collapse, a theory that without which, is considered so weak that it's not even considered to be an interpretation.

Perhaps then, you'd like to enlighten both myself and the Physics community with your starting revelation as to the mechanism of this self-collapsing measurement. I'm fairly sure there's a Nobel Prize in it for you, if you can.

Alternatively, I suggest you re-read your wikipedia link - "There is no objective reality underneath determining the outcome. Not only is there a veil hiding the clockwork, but the clockwork is different depending on how you lift the veil".

I stand corrected, and I probably won't comment on that for now.

Thats kind of lame Yeti. I'm sure that there were stupid people who ate bad food in biblical times, doesn't change my overall point. In fact your point doesn't make much of an impact on what I said. ANYONE two thousand years ago didn't know half of what we as average folk know now. I'm not talking wisdom just facts, about the world around us and even the universe around us. That is why going along with what a two thousand year old book has to say about a creation story, has no relevance to what we know now. It only has relevance because some small minority of chrisitans try over and over again to MAKE it have some relevance.

It's strange that the christian creation story has taken on such a warped significance to its believers. As creation stories go it isn't all that original or well written, thats why its in the bible twice, even they couldn't get the story straight.

You know, Tiggs is a pretty solid poster - he said (in another thread recently) 70% of Americans are unsure if the Earth revolves around the sun.

So, there are the haves, and the have nots as always.

Ummm - not entirely - what I said was:



The figures are from a recently published Gallop poll - The figures were 79% believed that the Earth revolved around the Sun, 18% thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth and 3% were unsure.

Well - I guess I really screwed that one up! Thanks for fixing it. Still, the point is that America is so cutting edge in so many areas of science, and technology and it is also simultaneously so filled with stupid people. Not to be mean, just saying.....

So honestly you are trying to say that people two thousand years ago had equal knowledge of people now? Seriously?

I find that hard to believe.

No, I'm not really saying that. You probably get more info even watching 6-10 hours of tv every day. Hey, what do you mean about the bible's creation story? Where is it given twice?

man is no smarter now

hes just more aware.

smart people will pick up on all this stuff normally. look at pyramid builders.

I noticed that nobody commented on this from earlier. http://www.icr.org/article/165/

Server posted a link or some info to a study showing that the sun is 4.5 billion years old. Which corresponds to the currently accepted age of the earth. Do you find that at all interesting? The sun is forming, the earth is forming, the solar system is all coming together at the same time - not a problem. My question is, how long did life really have to evolve on earth? 4.5 billion years? No, it would have taken a long time for the sun to coalesce. Then, don't forget about the extinction that wiped out the dinosaurs. I'm just saying alot of time evolution is given alot more time to happen then what is real.

no offense taken, i also am in the educational arena and in california where i am at we have one of the poorest educational public systems...I do not dispute that there are brilliant people and minds in our culture, but i stand with yeti that not enough of this brillaince is applied or respected by the majority , take gobal warming , or the gas situation, or the voting process and it goes on and on..... or the fact that very few states have stepped up to the going green plate to be the diffenrce very few in fact........California is tied up in court with the oil companys blocking ethonal which could make a huge diffenence here, everywhere really........I am saying that we have a obesity issue so huge in the US that kids will not be out living their parents and little is done by many to address it,alot is done to deny it though.....
i don't think yeti was trying to insult anyone and I dont find his comments lame , they are fair and valid......

i do not disagree with your observations either server and I see you care and its nice to see...to be honest....I am glad you have good schools i wish for all our kids we did also....so we work towards it not by denying it is an issue but by addressing it and In all fairness i think that is what yeti was doing....thankyou for your very thoughtful post ....

I think that's down to rounding, mostly, Yeti. When you're talking about processes in Billions of years, each 0.01 is 10 Million years long.

Wikipedia states the age of the Sun as 4.57 Billion years and the age of the Earth as 4.54 Billion years, leaving a gap of 30 Million Years or so between them.