two important questions for Servant

MTW This is a perfect example of how one science backs up another with evidence. The physics of how the world operates are well established and we can use those to determine the results of a phenomena with a high degree of confidence.Chemistry and biology are areas where there is a high degree of confidence in things as well.When you bring a high degree of confidence backed up with evidence to the table it requires a higher [not lower] degree of rigour and discipline to overturn the "established" view.As Coragyps points out it is not necessary to repeat the flood to determine the actions of such an event on physical objects.It would be fun to invite John McKay or someone else from the 'experts' in the creationist camp to come to the forum and answer the shortcomings of their positions.Alas,I am sure they would decline the offer.

---

'Everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.'
(Daniel Patrick Moynihan)

Hi Schrafinator,I think your original post quite interesting. The thread's decay into the standard bickering does not discount the original post's probic value.I want to respond to parts of your post as follows:1-para 3) "...to have evolved exactly as if there was no common creator, but what is the point of that?"
1-para 4) "...only creates more questions and doesn't explain anything at all."2) "...must be falsifiable, and have positive evidence to support it."I use the symbol BAE001 instead of other phrases relating to "creationism". This is mostly because I still have a hope of a highly structured discussion independent of the emotion present here.BAE001 - A theory that fits the "tree of life"BAE001.1 - God's big bang (not directly relevant to this discussion)
BAE001.2 - God's organizing the planet earth (not directly relevant...)
BAE001.3 - God's organization of the "tree of life"
BAE001.3.a created DNA components from "the dust of the earth"
He started with a comparatively simple structure (consider your grandfather playing with leggos with you) and progressed to the very complex.
BAE001.3.b created quietly (from Him) self-sustaining and self-reproducing
The DNA was made to be dividing and combining and to exist within a cell.
BAE001.3.c created variety
At many points along the way He placed the DNA into a cell to verify and realize a new species.
BAE001.3.d interacted with reality
Because the DNA was being produced over time, interactions with the universe happened (vitamin C defect, etc). Thus, any defects due to these interactions (cosmic rays, etc) were carried forward into the more complex life.Now, the above outline can be poplulated with every aspect of evolution so why not accept BAE001? What is the point of not accepting? If only to avoid an absolute authority then the refusal to accept does not make God not exist. Yes, God does make things more complex. With the the existence of God comes absolute Truth and absolute Law.One could complain "what is the point of that" if there was no logic in creation but I am hard pressed to find basis for complaint in the fact that there is logic.A fact does not need to be falsifiable; a theory does. To put that limitaiton on the existence of God is illogical. All the evidence that supports evolution also supports BAE001.I look forward to your response,
Bob, Alice, and Eve

You see, I watch this tv program, and McKay has been on it a LOT. I always thought the things he said made sense, when he explained the logic behind what he is saying. The website itself seems to be the tip of the iceburg and is almost and overview which is why I said - (limited website). I'll be honest, I think some of the statements at the website are in no way enough to engage you or to even jump to his defense. My first post sure has made some interest, but I am not really attacking evolution here, my main point was that like Asgara pointed out, there are some alternative explanations to the evidence that creationism might explain. Well, again - the website I was never very impressed with, I only provided it because I hadn't given a source for Mckay. I am not recommending it as the website of the year or anything. But my point was, (might be a smaller point than you think) - is that, he does discuss evidence alone sometimes. If he shows fossils and his arguments, how is that not producing the evidence. I don't know if you have heard of revelation tv, but Mckay has had atleast 4 "talking hours" about fossils and orchids. To be fair to him, he did make some good arguments and is very persuasive, and I am a layman so - yes, it would make sense to me. But then, I've never pretended to be anything other than a layman. Well, I always said I was disturbed, you only have to read my post titles to conclude that. However, despite me being a luny, I am not infact that much "against" evolution at the moment. I knew I would get a big response in this topic, it is my fault as I have chose to defend a newbie really. You see this is the problem, the site is not "in depth". His argument for the size difference, is that animals done better before the fall/flood, in a hotter climate, and the world has went downhill. His basic outlook is death&decline. He argues that all cratures are found to be huge in the fossils. Super crocs, giant cockroaches(no laughing "scarface" fans) giant plants etc. - All indicative of a fallen world. It's kinda like a battle I have lost but I am still fighting --> the guy just doesn't know when to quit. I respect you though Sylas, your honesty is a good thing concerning the "ignorance".Problem is though - you guys are all evos, how can I know for sure which is accurate when you guys are on the same side.There's no point in a crowd of people fighting with one person. I have tried to defend Servant2thecause as when a newbie arrives who is creationist, usually there is a big attack on that person. If I joined and agreed with the populas about evolution, I am certain that there would be no crowd and potm would shortly follow. I gotchta even it out a little sometimes.I already am finding it hard to respond to every post. Maybe he might not return and I will end up fighting his battle.

Why don't you just say "theistic evolution"? Isn't that what you're talking about? If not, could you outline just where your model departs from a position of theistic evolution? Because there's no evidence that God exists?Non-belief in God is an entirely reasonable position, just as the belief in God is. (The belief that there is evidence for God isn't reasonable, because there's no such evidence.)My point, I guess, is that since evolution is not a theory that makes statements about the existence of God, one's belief in God should not be affected by evolution. What you refer to as BAE001 isn't a model of the natural world; it's an inference about the character of God. Naturally, since all you've done is take an evolutionary model and append "oh, and btw, God exists" to the end of it. That's not to say that what you've done is wrong; it's just that it's not scientific.

I guess the quesion is, Mike, how do we know anything (for "sure" or not)? We all have to spend some time to decide on what we think might be true and not. If a topic isn't important we don't spend much time and might take an "authority" that we have some reason to trust.If the topic is important then we owe it to ourselves to invest a bit more effort.First you've got to try to sort out what "facts" you are given might be true. A lot of these will have to involve some trust in some source or another, unfortunately.Then you have to apply your own ability to reason based on those facts. You can follow what logic other people are using and see if you think it is, in fact, "logical".This is all built up brick by brick. It is a large task in a complicated world. Each of us, once s/he has a "brick", tends to take that as being solid and use it as a stepping stone to some new conclusion.I guess, Mike, that is why I've suggested that you be careful of your sources. If you catch any of us seeming to lie or deliberately mislead you then you should, in future, disregard much of what that person says. I think that needs to be done with sources like Wyatt or McKay.When the volume of "facts" and follow-on logic becomes too great I suggest that you pick out some smaller parts to see if you can deal with those. If that sample hints at a problem with the source you may have to throw out everything from that source. It's a shame but none of us has time to dig out the diamonds of truth if it is embedded in a matric of lies.Why don't we see if we can help with picking "test" topics to help you figure out what sources to trust?In the wide world you should not simply trust anyone without your own thinking on the issues at hand. It seems you understand that and are getting pretty good at applying your own analysis to the issues.

quote:

---

All the evidence that supports evolution also supports BAE001.

---

...according to your particular brand of religious belief.Most of the Creationists on this board would disagree with you rather strenuously.What you seem to be describing is Theistic Evolution, which I have no problem with.I actually have no problem with any belief, as long as faith-based beliefs are not confused for science.Science cannot use the supernatural as an explanation, because science deals with only the natural.You can believe that God has his finger in every single aspect of every chemical or physical reaction or action in the Universe, and always had, but since science has no way to verify or test the existence of God, God cannot be considered.

quote:

---

In the wide world you should not simply trust anyone without your own thinking on the issues at hand. It seems you understand that and are getting pretty good at applying your own analysis to the issues.

---

I found that a very helpful book on this topic is, "The Demon-Haunted World--Science as a Candle in the Dark" by Carl Sagan.He wrote a very good chapter on the "baloney detector" that is the scientific method.Also, there's a great book that is unfortunately out of print called called, "The Game of Science" by Garvin McCain and Erwin M. Segal.

You should read Origin of Species by Darwin.Darwin started out with his experiments to test out Lamark's theory, which states that adaptive traits are passed down from one generation to the next. In other words, Lamark believed that if you learn how to play the clarinet really well, then you will pass your skills down to your children as a clarinet player. Lamark justified this by pointing to the fact that children of musicians are usually great musicians and children of lock smiths are usually great lock smiths.What Darwin found out was that adaptive traits cannot be passed on to the next generation, but phenotypic traits can. He came to this conclusion after his observations of the peas in his garden.Most of what influenced Darwin to come up with his theory of evolution through natural selection came from his observations while on the Beagle, a ship that left Britain in 1831 to map out South America. On the voyage, Darwin observed many species on isolated islands that look strikingly similar to the ones on the mainland. In other words, years of observations and cataloguing thousands of species got him to come up with the theory. It wasn't some kind of divine revelation that got him to come up with his theory.Even though Darwin lived in the 19th century, I think that he had one of the best scientific minds anyone in history could have, considering that most people back then were still shaky in the field of science.

Are you sure Darwin did anything with peas?I thought the pea man was Mendel.Also it's my recollection that Darwin was kind of open about the inheritance of aquired characteristics because he didn't know anything at all about Mendel's work/inheretence.Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Oops! Hahahaha. My mistake. I don't know what I was thinking when I wrote that.

---

The Laminator

​

If I may put in my two centsyou guys have all heard of the second law of thermodynamics right? Well as we know from thermodynamics entropy sets the direction of times arrow, that being forward only. We know this because entropy will always and must increase in a system left to on it’s own. With that said, how could it be that life started? We would have to have some amino acids in random order or high entropy suddenly and for no reason order themselves into a living thing, thus reducing entropy and as we know that is not possible. If you do throw a creator into it then the problem is solved. The creator would of reduced the entropy by deign and that is does not violate entropy laws.

And you have heard of winter, have you not, Steppjr? In that time of the year, in many parts of the world, water vapor floating around in random order somehow orders itself into snow crystals, thus reducing entropy!!! We know this is not possible, so Ice Faeries must be causing it by.....

I'll leave others to handle the full refutation of this, but do me a solid here. Go outside. Look up. Right up, at that big thumping bright yellow ball in the sky.The system isn't left on its own. Energy is constantly being pumped into the system.

---

"As the days go by, we face the increasing inevitability that we are alone in a godless, uninhabited, hostile and meaningless universe. Still, you've got to laugh, haven't you?"
-Holly

That’s a phase change and different from what I am talking about, there was no phase change with amino acids forming into a protein. Lets simple look at the odds or let’s call it probability. I have a higher probability of my hand missing all the electrons in this keyboard and passing right through it that there is of a few amino acids on a random planet at the right distants from a properly sized sun forming into a living thing

Well either you have managed to work out all the possible pathways to the formation of life including all the relevant factors - OR - you are making claims you can't possibly defend.Well I have to say that I don't think that you are Nobel Prize material, but if I'm wrong feel free to stun us all with your long list of cutting-edge scientific publications.