Evolution is NOT science: A challenge

Double post for some reason, sorry!This message has been edited by Glordag, 07-22-2004 04:07 AM

Perhaps you can tell us about creation. Since you don't deny or ignore creation, as you would have me believe, this should be easy for you.Maybe you should think about what a trial judge does for instanc3e in determening guilt or innocense. If a person's act was forced for instance by bad uprbringing or something, then what the person did was not, or less, his chosen act, but more the effect of circumstances. The origin of the act lay outside the suspect.The point is, you have to do this kind of thing every day in normal life, trace back origins to root causes. I think we can say that the knowledge of creationist about creation is much deeper then evolutionists, even if the biblestory is not factually correct, even if their knowledge is not much systemized. They know more about creation then you, and this knowledge is the knowledge that generally matters most in life.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It went left, it went right, either way there is no difference to science. No spirit in evidence that chose, whether it is a rock falling left or right, or a human being choosing to vote liberal or conservative. There was no material property that forced the outcome.There may be no evidence of any spirit within choice, but you are held to believe by society in general that not all choices are the same, and that you can make one choice or another. You are held to believe that where there is no material property determining an outcome in the usual sense, then still something determines the outcome, things are chosen.That way creation gives credibility to religion generally. I don't think it is needed to mention God within science, because the intellectual climate of opinion surrounding creation is enough to be conducive to belief in God.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

If that is the case you might have a point, but even though that is a widely held belief there is no evidence that it is actually true. The fact is that we simply don't know if there is anything beyond a purely material basis for our choices. The fact that people generally ascribe to a belief in something is far from conclusive evidence of its existence. And it still isn't conferring any credibility to religion.Your argument seems to be that lots of people believe in free will and therefore there is a good chance that god exists, which doesn't neccessarily follow.TTFN,WK

I think you are misinformed. Uncertainty is part of modern science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think we can say that the knowledge of creationist about creation is much deeper then evolutionists, even if the biblestory is not factually correct, even if their knowledge is not much systemized. They know more about creation then you, and this knowledge is the knowledge that generally matters most in life.Because they have a book of stories? So no I don't think we can say that at all. The rest seems to be the sort of stuff that you get in a cracker. Care to try and explain what you mean?

Hi Syamsu,I'm still trying to get a grasp on the concept in the above paragraphs. I'm going to put my understanding of the concept in my own words. Can you let me know if I'm close?

• Some events totally go against any material properties possessed by them.
• Since none of the material properties cause such an event to happen, we can conclude an intelligent choice caused the event.
• Thus there is a "creation" since normally the event could never happen within the given material properties.

I await your feedback.thanx
PM1K

Which is totally irrelevant to the discussion and in no way addresses anything from the post you replied to. By the by, I assume you mean that uncertainty is a recognised concept in many areas of science rather than there people are uncertain about a lot of things in science.In what way am I misinformed? Do you have some evidence for there being a specific non-material basis for decision making processes in humans, if so then why haven't you collected your nobel prize yet?There is a considerable difference between things being determined or probabilistic and between them having a material or non-material basis. The fact that the heisenberg uncertainty principle, for instance, operates on subatomic particles doesn't mean that we can't use deterministic newtonian physics to calculate a ballistic trajectory, or even the more complex trajectory of your dropped rock, and neither relies on any supernatural intervention or 'creation' or requires the existence of non-material properties.TTFN,WK

quote:

---

I think we can say that the knowledge of creationist about creation is much deeper then evolutionists, even if the biblestory is not factually correct, even if their knowledge is not much systemized. They know more about creation then you, and this knowledge is the knowledge that generally matters most in life.

---

Can you name one discovery about the natural world that first required a belief in God as the Creator? Can you name one theory that first requires a belief in God before a natural phenomena can be described? The way I understand the history of discoveries and theories is that the greatest discoveries were made after God was excluded as being measurably involved in the natural world.

Very good thread indeed. Much information that requires careful thought and analysis.I just thought you guys might be interested in this new article:Stephen Hawking revamps black hole theoryCNN.com - Page not foundAccording to me, the article only proves that matter can never be destroyed. It can change from one form to another, but can never be completely annihilated--which confirms the first law of thermodynamics.

---

~Lysimachus

quote:

---

According to me, the article only proves that matter can never be destroyed. It can change from one form to another, but can never be completely annihilated--which confirms the first law of thermodynamics.

---

Matter can be destroyed, it can be turned into energy. Remeber Einstein? E=mc²? That is why the theory of thermodynamics states that matter AND energy can not be destroyed.

You are a physicist are you?According to you? So? Can you explain how the possibility of getting information out of a black hole confirms the 1st law?Then once we have established that the 1st law is safe (I didn't think there was any doubt of that). So what?

Well, first of all, I think the replies below me addressed a lot of your post. Second, I'm growing tired of this discussion, as neither of us are getting anywhere.Despite this, I will go ahead and reply to some of your post.

quote:

---

Perhaps you can tell us about creation. Since you don't deny or ignore creation, as you would have me believe, this should be easy for you.

---

Well, it depends which type of creation you are asking me to explain. My belief of creation is rather brief and simple. The matter and energy out of which everything came into being had to come from somewhere. I do not pretend to know where it came from or why it was produced, therefore I do not attempt to explain it or worship any deity that "might" have made it.I can try to explain other beliefs of creation, but that is somewhat difficult, as they are all beliefs that I do not hold. Some believe in a literal Genesis account of creation. I'm sure all of you know what Genesis states about creation (if not, just open the Bible and begin reading), so there isn't much point into going into detail there. I know some Christians believe that god created the matter and energy I mentioned before, and the laws of science took it from there. Other religions have various stories about creation, some of which I have heard to some degree, some of which I have not. What else should I have to learn about creation to study science?

quote:

---

Maybe you should think about what a trial judge does for instanc3e in determening guilt or innocense. If a person's act was forced for instance by bad uprbringing or something, then what the person did was not, or less, his chosen act, but more the effect of circumstances. The origin of the act lay outside the suspect.

---

Everyone has their own set of morals. Judges must rely somewhat on morals, yes, but much moreso on law. As far as the reasoning being immoral (to some) acts, one (in my opinion) must simply try and determine what works out best for the most people, while not being obviously immoral and unjust to one. Of course, sometimes you must choose between the lesser of two evils, and nothing can be done in these cases.Now, could you please explain to me what any of this has to do with creation? Apparently someone else is having somewhat of a difficult time understanding you, so it's not just me. Are you trying to imply that people could not have a moral code without God or the bible? I'm just a little confused...

quote:

---

The point is, you have to do this kind of thing every day in normal life, trace back origins to root causes. I think we can say that the knowledge of creationist about creation is much deeper then evolutionists, even if the biblestory is not factually correct, even if their knowledge is not much systemized. They know more about creation then you, and this knowledge is the knowledge that generally matters most in life.

---

First of all, everyone ponders about issues relating to life, death, their origins, etc. etc. The fact that some Christians choose to believe in a creation story from the Bible does NOT necessarily mean that they have a deeper understanding of creation. In fact, I'm pretty sure that cosmologists who have studied the processes that occurred around the Big Bang and beginning of the universe have a deeper understanding than most, and especially than those who know nothing more of creation than what they are told in the Bible. If you would like to give me some reasons that show why creationists would have a deeper understanding of creation than evolutionists, I would be glad to receive them.

So far the point's been given that the theistic evolutionists prove that evolution is a fact, but that fact does not undermine faith. With all but one of the 'fundie' side falling out and the remaining one not convincing anybody, I think we can all agree this thread's serving its purpose. But please, may I ask the atheists debating here to lay off just a little longer? That way there won't be any 'you don't see the Light' excuses when the smoke clears. Thanks.

---

Wanna feel God? Step onto the wrestling mat and you'd be crazy to deny the uplifting spirit. http://www.BadPreacher.5u.com (incomplete, but look anyway!)

Well no I would not care to explain after some evolutionists have said they know well about creation. I prefer you to display your knowledge of creation to see if it is true or not that evolutionists deny and or ignore creation.I challenge any of the evolutionists to describe an event where things can turn out one way or another. I say none of you can do it. You can't discuss such an event without accidently putting up a material cause which denies that in fact it was an event which could turn out one way or another, but that it was in stead an event where the outcome was predetermined with no possibility of it turning out another way. Eventhough I spell it out for you, you will fail. Write in irate large letters you can, joke and be dismissive of creation in respect to the facts of evolution you can, but to describe an event going one way or another and be decided you all can't. I've seen this happen before, so you shouldn't think it is so easy even when you know what to avoid.And to be fair, maybe a creationist should answer that challenge also, to see if the creationist can.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu