Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8943 total)
32 online now:
Faith, PaulK, Theodoric (3 members, 29 visitors)
Newest Member: LaLa dawn
Post Volume: Total: 863,982 Year: 19,018/19,786 Month: 1,438/1,705 Week: 244/446 Day: 42/98 Hour: 3/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Creationism in science classrooms (an argument for)
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 609 (547292)
02-17-2010 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-11-2008 5:37 PM


Genesis is an evolutionary account
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 02-17-2010 11:46 PM achristian1985 has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 122 of 609 (547300)
02-17-2010 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 121 by achristian1985
02-17-2010 11:22 PM


Re: Genesis is an evolutionary account
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system.

Agreed.

In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality...

Sorry, that has not been established. "Spiritual reality" is a null term.

... and Biblical truth

Sorry, in many instances "biblical truth" has been disproved.

...and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race.

According to who? And which god(s)? Please provide some empirical evidence for this/these.

Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.

The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.

You will have to demonstrate this.

Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.

Scientists have for scientific reasons, based on data and theory, disproved a variety of religious beliefs. Young earth and special creation (kinds) are but two.

Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?

Religious based arguments ignored for lack of evidence.

There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the
land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
O1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.

I think you may need to rethink some of this. Forget the bible and concentrate on the science and see what you end up with.

Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!

This reminds me of a poster a few years back on another website who insisted, in spite of all that we told him, that the odds against evolution were 1720.

In other words, numbers only mean something when they are attached to something concrete, and are arrived at correctly.

Your whole post appears to be an attempt to couch biblical beliefs in scientific terms in the hope of convincing (fooling) someone. In order to bring this into the realm of science you will have to start documenting these claims and not just rely on "spiritual truth" or some such.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 121 by achristian1985, posted 02-17-2010 11:22 PM achristian1985 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:06 AM Coyote has not yet responded
 Message 125 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:11 AM Coyote has responded

achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 123 of 609 (547303)
02-18-2010 12:06 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
02-17-2010 11:46 PM


Re: Genesis is an evolutionary account
Evolution is the only valid and viable explanation for the origin of life, and has been verified in every testable instance. Just pointing out that there is no logical conflict with Genesis- only in the mind. Also, the literal 6-day thing is total ignorance, and theologically wrong, wrong, wrong. As to God, catch my next reply. FAIR WARNING: God doesn't want either couch potatoes or spiritual robots. So far, you're neither and getting warmer (in a healthy way)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 02-17-2010 11:46 PM Coyote has not yet responded

achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 124 of 609 (547304)
02-18-2010 12:08 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Modulous
09-11-2008 5:37 PM


logical ramifications of evolution
CHAPTER ONE

THE AXIOM

I did not speak in secret, in a land of darkness;
I did not say . . . Seek me in chaos.
--(Isaiah 5:19 D.S.V.)

There are two possible schools of thought pertaining to the evaluation of the Universe that we live in. One school of thought is embodied in the philosophy known as Solipsism. This philosophy expounds that all external reality is relative to the perception of the individual, or, in other words, all reality is subjective and cannot be described by objective analysis. As an example, Solipsism is the belief that everything that individuals perceive is a projection of the thoughts of their mind. Taken to its fullest implications, Solipsism means that if you think strongly that an object that you perceive does not really exist, then you will cease to perceive it and it will thus disappear. Conversely, if you think strongly enough that an object does exist, then you will perceive it and it will thus exist. Understandably, the ardent adherents of this school of thought soon lost what sanity they had.

When we lead from ignorance, we can come to no conclusions. When we say, “Anything can happen, and anything can be, because we know so little that we have no right to say ‘This is’ or ‘This isn’t,’” then all reasoning comes to a halt right there. We can eliminate nothing; we can assert nothing. All we can do is put words and thoughts together on the basis of intuition or faith or revelation and, unfortunately, no two people seem to share the same intuition or faith or revelation.
What we must do is place rules and set limits, however arbitrary these may seem to be. We then discover what we can say within these rules and limits. The scientific view of the Universe is such as to admit only those phenomena that can, in one way or another, be observed in a fashion accessible to all, and to admit those generalizations (which we call laws of nature) that can be induced from those observations.1

Most importantly, Einstein presumed that all the laws of nature must be entirely equivalent in all conceivable systems of reference, differing only by uniform velocities. Without an ether, reasoned Einstein, there is no real physical basis for absolute spatial positions or orientations; all, therefore, must be relative to the observer. At the same time, all observers must see the many laws of nature in an identical way.2

Science deals only with phenomena that can be reproduced; observations that, under certain fixed conditions, can be made by anybody of normal intelligence; observations upon which reasonable men can agree.3

In opposition to Solipsism is the school of thought that objective interpretation of the universe we live in is possible. Since the validity of Solipsism would mean that it would be impossible to make logical sense out of what we are aware of, we will assume that Solipsism is invalid. Bearing this in mind, I propose the following axiom, which we may call the Axiom of Interdependency:

If a “spiritual universe” exists, there likewise must also exist laws or principles common to both such a “spiritual universe” and to the physical universe, in order for us to be able to perceive any manifestation of such a “spiritual universe.”

Notice that this axiom in no way assumes the existence of a spiritual universe. The reason why seeking objective proof of the existence of a spiritual universe is futile will be dealt with in later chapters.

What this axiom does say is that if a spiritual universe exists that does not have laws or principles in common with our physical universe, then we cannot be aware of it and thus it would be of no concern to us. However, if a spiritual universe exists such that we are aware of some of its manifestations, then it will have laws or principles in common with our physical universe. Thus, for any postulated assertion of a spiritual reality, there should be corresponding evidence of that reality reflected in our physical universe. Conversely, it should be possible to formulate a framework of characteristics of the physical universe that will indicate the nature of the corresponding spiritual reality. Practically speaking, this axiom means that it is possible to construct a logical theory encompassing virtually every field of science that will explain the purpose behind everything known to man.
Chapter Two

AN EXTRAPOLATION

“... before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.” (Isaiah 43:10)

There are two, and only two, explanations for the means whereby life now exists on this planet.

First, there is the explanation that life on earth was divinely created. Regardless of the great variety of legends depicting such an occurrence, all such legends have in common two things: Life was originated by some supernatural means, and some divine being or beings employed this means.

Since, obviously, there is no way that the above explanation of the origin of life can be subjected to any scientific analysis, it would be profitless to discuss its merits (at this point). Therefore, let us examine the other explanation for the origin of life and see what conclusions may be derived from such an analysis.

The other means I am referring to is, of course, the theory of evolution. By evolution, I mean the process or processes whereby life as we now know it has come about from an originally inorganic universe through purely mechanistic actions in conformity with the laws of the physical universe. Keeping these parameters in mind, let us now see what relevant conclusions may be derived:

Moreover, while Haldane and Oparin (both atheists) could cheerfully divorce life and God, others were offended by this and strove to show that there was no way in which the origin of life could be removed from the miraculous and made the result of the chance collisions of atoms.
A French biophysicist, Piere Lecomte du Noűy dealt with this very matter in his book, Human Destiny, which was published in 1947. By then the full complexity of the protein molecule was established, and Lecomte du Noűy attempted to show that if the various atom of carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, and sulfur arranged themselves in purely random order, the chance of their arriving in this way at even a single protein molecule of the type associated with life was so exceedingly small that the entire lifetime of the universe would be insufficient to offer it more than an insignificant chance of happening. Chance, he maintained, could not account for life....

Lecomte du Nouy's argument seemed exceedingly strong, and many people eagerly let themselves be persuaded by it and still do even today.
?Yet it is wrong.
Options Disable Sm The fallacy in Lecomte du Noūy’s argument rests in the assumption that pure chance was alone the guiding factor and that atoms can fit together in any fashion at all. Actually, atoms are guided in their combinations by well?known laws of physics and chemistry, so that the formation of complex compounds from simple ones are constrained by severely restrictive rules that sharply limit the number of different ways in which they combine. What's more, as we approach complex molecules, such as those of proteins and nucleic acids, there is no one particular molecule that is associated with life, but innumerable different molecules, till of which are in association.4

What we learn it from the above is that the formation of organic molecules from inorganic atoms is entirely permissible, mathematically speaking, according to the laws of physics and chemistry governing such interactions.

Most of the stony meteorites contain small glassy inclusions, and about two percent of these are called carbonaceous chondrites because they contain significant quantities of organic matter. The proportions, in fact, are extraordinarily high. About 0.1 percent of all material, which has ever fallen on Earth, is organic. By comparison, if we measure the total weight of all organic matter on earth against the mass of the planet itself, only 0.0000001 percent is of living origin. This means that meteors are coming from somewhere that is a million times more organic than earth itself?which is something one has to stop and think about for a while.5

Not only are organic molecules mechanistically permissible, but also direct evidence of their existence, in astounding proportions, elsewhere than on Earth is a fact.

These are the stuff of organic chemistry, the study of compounds producing, or produced by living organisms; and these are the kinds of reaction, which it now seems certain, are taking place between the stars.
Awareness of this possibility seems to have reached a peak at a gathering of astronomers in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1973. Several papers presented to what is now known as the Dusty Universe symposium pointed out that there seemed to be a lot of atoms missing from interstellar space. Spectroscopic analyses kept coming up with results that showed less carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen than everyone expected to find there.
New models were put forward, slid the most promising of these suggested that the missing atoms had gone undetected because they were bound up on the surface of interstellar dust grains in a sort of molecular mush which Mayo Greenburg called "dirty ice." At that time there was little experimental evidence for the existence of such accretions on cosmic grains, but since then, radio astronomy ? which receives and interprets microwaves rather than light waves, and can look right through interstellar clouds ? has given us what we need. The very short radio waves provide a sort of electronic spectrum that includes fingerprints as distinctive as those that appear in the lines of an optical spectrum. And in the last few years radio astronomers have detected an ever?increasing list of simple organic molecules in interstellar space.

The first substances detected in this way were nothing more than simple connections of the most common atoms: cyanogens (CN), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) But then formaldehyde (H2CO) was found, and before long formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH2OH) acetaldehyde (HCOCH3) and methyl firmate (HCOOCH3) turned up. One doesn't have to be a chemist to see that the progression is toward ever more complex organic compounds.6

The existence of organic molecules has not only been verified in meteors reaching the Earth's surface, but has also been verified as being true for interstellar space as well. How can this be so? Weren't we taught that chemical reactions required heat and were inhibited by cold, cold such as we find in interstellar space?

It used to be assumed that chemical reactions need heat and slow down as temperatures were reduced. This is true, but only up to a point. We now know that as the temperature nears absolute zero, a strange thermodynamic inversion takes place and many processes actually accelerate, so that the complex early evolution of carbon compounds is more likely to take place inside interstellar clouds than almost anywhere else.7

At any rate, Leslie Orgel did a number of elegant experiments of which I will describe the simplest. He took some of the basic constituents, which are sure to have been present in the atmosphere of the earth at any early time: hydrogen cyanide is one, ammonia is another. He made a dilute solution of them in water, and then froze the solution over a period of several days. As a result, the concentrated material is pushed into a sort of tiny iceberg to the top, and there the presence of a small amount of color reveals that organic molecules have been formed. Some amino acids, no doubt; but, most important, Orgel found that he had formed one of the four fundamental constituents in the genetic alphabet which directs all life. He had made adenine, one of the four bases in DNA.8

The chemical reactions permissible under cold conditions have been shown to be capable of producing a very high level of complexity of organic molecules, even up to the level of the basic constituent of all known life, DNA.

The compounds in the carbonaceous chondrites are not life; they have formed in the direction of our kind of life?and human experimenters have had nothing to do with their formation. On the whole, then, meteoritic studies tend to support laboratory, experiments and make it appear all the more likely that life is a natural, a normal, and even an inevitable phenomenon. Atoms apparently tend to come together to form compounds in the direction of our kind of life whenever they have the least chance to do so.9

It is always possible that the laboratory conditions producing organic molecules have exceeded the limits that existed under the natural conditions that they are simulating. However, meteorites have been shown to contain organic molecules with the same indications; and these were not produced by human experimentation.

It is a big jump from prebiotic molecules in interstellar clouds to primitive organisms on a comet, but it is not an unreasonable one. When a comet gets anywhere near the sun, its water melts and could mingle with the trapped dust to produce a solution of organic molecules which, we know from spectroscopic analysis of Khoutek's comet in 1973, includes amino acids and heterocyclic compounds.10

Scientific analysis has confirmed that organic molecules basic to life definitely do exist in space.

At least one further source of information about the strange things in meteorites remains to be explored. If the organic compounds are protocells in a state of suspended animation, perhaps they can be roused. Soviet and American scientists have been trying to do just that.
Fred Sisler of the United States Geological Survey has begun collecting samples from the interior of carbonaceous chondrites, and he finds that even after a long period under sterile conditions, some of his nutrient broths nevertheless cloud over, indicating the presence of living microorganisms. And at least one of these sleeping beauties, roused from an unimaginable slumber, is totally unfamiliar to terrestrial microbiologists. No one has ever seen anything like it here before, so it is going to be hard to dismiss that one as a contaminant.11

Not only have meteorites proven the existence of extraterrestrial organic molecules but, in one case, they have also given us proof of the existence of extraterrestrial life:
Several rigorous analyses of carbonaceous chondrites have now been made, and all show quite clearly that they contain compounds such as paraffins, long?chain aromatic hydrocarbons like tar, fatty acids, amino acids (the basic precursors of protein), and even porphyrins (the building blocks of chlorophyll). And in early 1977, an international group of seven scientists ? astronomers, chemists, and applied mathematicians ?collaborated in an intensive study on a recently collected chondrites from a site in Africa. They found that it contained an organic compound, an aromatic polymer, whose spectral properties are identical those long to known from interstellar extinction curves. The fingerprints are unique and unmistakable. For the first time we have proof that some meteorites have their origin in presolar interstellar clouds and must be among the most primitive solid bodies in the universe. And, more than that, we have evidence of a cosmic trade in which complex organic compounds, precisely those necessary for the initiation of life, are manufactured in space and imported here to Earth. 12

Evidence proves that meteorites are of interstellar origin. This means that organic material not only is distributed throughout interstellar space but also is readily available to any planetary system in the galaxy. Let us now examine what is known about processes involving organic molecules under terrestrial conditions.

In other words, we don't depend on chance alone, but on chance guided by the laws of nature, and that should be enough.
Could the matter be checked in the laboratory? The American chemist Harold Clayton Grey encouraged a young student, Stanley Lloyd Miller (1930), to run the necessary experiment in 1952.
Miller tried to duplicate primordial conditions on Earth, assuming Oparin's Atmosphere 1. He began with a closed and sterile mixture of water. Ammonia methane, and hydrogen, which represented a small and simple version of Earth's primordial atmosphere and ocean. He then used an electric discharge as an energy source, and that represented a tiny version of the Sun.
He circulated the mixture past the discharge for a week and then analyzed it. The originally colorless mixture had turned pink on the first day, and by the end of the week one?sixth of the methane with which Miller had started had been converted into more complex molecules. Among those molecules were glycine and alanine, the two simplest of the amino acids that occur in proteins.
In the years after that key experiment, other similar experiments were conducted with variations in starting materials and in energy sources. Invariably, more complicated molecules, sometimes identical with those in living tissues, sometimes merely related to them, were formed. An amazing variety of key molecules of living tissue were formed "spontaneously" in this manner, although calculations of the simplistic Lecomte du Nouy type would have given their formation virtually no chance.
If this could be done in small volumes over very short ? periods of time, what could have been done in an entire ocean, over a period of many millions of years?
It was also impressive that all the changes produced in the laboratory by the chance collisions of molecules and the chance absorption of energy (guided always by the known laws of nature) seemed to move always in the direction of life as we know it now. There seemed no important changes that pointed definitely in some different chemical direction.
That made it seem as though life were an inevitable product of high probability varieties of chemical reactions, and that the formation of life on the primordial Earth could not have been avoided. 13

All indications are that, given the constituency of the primordial?biosphere, the formation of life as we know it appears inevitable.

The implications were overwhelming. The ingredients themselves had the automatically linked together into these compounds fundamental to life.14

But the self?assembling tendency of matter, its inherent capacity to form living material, had been clearly demonstrated. 15

All of this evidence? in the laboratory, in meteorites, in interstellar clouds? makes it look as though the Haldane?Oparin suggestions are correct. Life did start spontaneously on the primordial Earth, and all indications would seem to be that it must have started readily, that the reactions in that direction were inevitable.
It follows that life would therefore start, sooner or later, on any habitable planet. 16

Scientific evidence indicates that, wherever favorable planetary conditions exist, life will inevitably evolve.
Obviously, the next question to be answered is: do we know whether or not our planetary system is unique?

A few photographic demonstrations of such massive planets have, in recent years, been achieved. Planets massive enough to be detected in this way are unlikely, however, to have conditions on them conducive to life, at least life, as we know it. Nevertheless, their existence does offer yet further indication of the universality of planetary systems. 17

Thus, the conditions are everywhere to be found throughout the universe much as we find them here in the solar system. The ingredients are everywhere the same, too, and the laws of physics. It would therefore seem almost impossible to escape the natural conclusion that life must consequently have arisen elsewhere in the universe? independently, many times, and in many places.18

As we survey evolution on Earth, there does seem a trend in the direction of increasing size and complexity (occasionally overdone?, to be sure, to the point of diminishing returns). What's more, increasing complexity seems almost to involve increasing intelligence in widespread groups of living things....
The weight of evidence, as presently known, therefore forces us to consider that intelligence, and sufficient intelligence to produce a civilization, is more or less an inevitable development on a habitable planet given sufficient time.... 19

The next step is to estimate the number of habitable planets both in the universe and in our particular galaxy.

Up to a billion galaxies can be detected by modern telescopes, stretching out to distances of a billion light?years.20

That would mean that in the observable universe, there are as many as 1,000,000,000,000,000.000,000 (a billion trillion) stars.21

ilies 1 - The number of stars in our galaxy ? 300 '000,000,000.22

8 ? The number of habitable planets in our galaxy ? 650,000,000.23

It is rather breathtaking to decide on the basis of (we hope) strict logic and the beat evidence we can find that there are 650 million habitable planets in our galaxy alone, and therefore over 2 billion billion in the Universe as a whole.24

How hard it is for the human mind to comprehend the enormity of this conclusion! How hard it is to realize the astronomical magnitude of our universe!

The number of planets in our galaxy on which a technological civilization has developed ? 390,000,000:...
That means that of the 390 million civilizations in our galaxy, only 260 are as primitive as we are?an inconsiderable number. All the rest (meaning just about all of them) are more advanced than we are.25

According to what are perhaps the most logical estimates that we can at present supply, there are 390 million civilizations in our galaxy alone, all but 260 of which are more advanced than ours. There are approximately 3 billion times that many civilizations in the universe. What conclusions can be deduced if we add to these figures the implications inherent to the process of evolution itself?

The ultimate result is that each creature tends to become more and more improved in relation to its condition. This improvement leads to the gradual advancement of the organization of the greater number of living beings throughout the world. … 26

Evolution is the climbing of a ladder from simple to complex by steps, each of which is stable in itself. …That is what has brought life by slow steps but constantly up a ladder of increasing complexity- which is the central progress and problem in evolution. 27

It might even be that a dying civilization might provide for its own succession, either by the genetic engineering of some near-intelligent species or by the creation of artificial intelligence. 28

Given the vastness of the universe and the consequent profusion of life, what must the ultimate consummation of the process of evolution be?
It is my contention that the inevitable and ultimate result of evolution is this: that somewhere, sooner or later, an entity would be evolved through either natural or artificial means which would no longer be subject to time.

What are the implications of such a conclusion?

Such an entity would in all practicality be:

1. Omnipotent and
2. Omniscient and
3. Omnipresent.

Such an entity would, by definition, be God.
By no means am I intending to speculate about the origin of God.
Such speculation is vain at best and blasphemous at worst. My intention is to show that no matter what method that you employ to explain the existence of life; the inevitable implication is the existence and reality of God.

Summary of Chapter Two:

“The fool has said in his heart; there is no God.” (Psalm 12:1)


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Modulous, posted 09-11-2008 5:37 PM Modulous has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 12:57 PM achristian1985 has not yet responded

achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 125 of 609 (547305)
02-18-2010 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 122 by Coyote
02-17-2010 11:46 PM


bark goodbye
Miles and forums to go b 4 I sleep.
Why don't you just call on God's name- ask Him to be real to you; and get your wo/andering over? Love

This message is a reply to:
 Message 122 by Coyote, posted 02-17-2010 11:46 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 126 by Coyote, posted 02-18-2010 12:33 AM achristian1985 has not yet responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 126 of 609 (547308)
02-18-2010 12:33 AM
Reply to: Message 125 by achristian1985
02-18-2010 12:11 AM


Re: bark goodbye
Quantity does not demonstrate quality.

You seem to be proof of that.

And spam is never appreciated. I guess you can't defend your claims and have to run away before you can face the challenges we'll present.

By the way, if you haven't already, go over to www.DarwinCentral.org and see how long you last there. You'll end up in the Zoo in 15 minutes or less if any mods are awake.

{Content hidden, suspension considered. - Adminnemooseus}

Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:11 AM achristian1985 has not yet responded

saab93f
Member (Idle past 1003 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


Message 127 of 609 (550773)
03-18-2010 5:31 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Syamsu
09-11-2008 8:08 PM


"So simply present the best possible evidence for creation you can think of. That way evolution would win out in comparison that the students can make themselves independently. But you would be hardpressed to find an evolutionist teacher to try to make the best possible case for creation. "

The "problem" is that there is no evidence for creation. Absolutely nothing, nada, zilch. How on earth can that be presented then? Unfortunately creationism is the paramount of intellectual disintegrity and should stay as far from classrooms as possible.

There is no politically correct way of saying that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Syamsu, posted 09-11-2008 8:08 PM Syamsu has not yet responded

BarackZero
Member (Idle past 3145 days)
Posts: 57
Joined: 10-08-2010


Message 128 of 609 (596023)
12-12-2010 12:57 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by achristian1985
02-18-2010 12:08 AM


Re: logical ramifications of evolution
aChristian1985 wrote:
quote:
"Not only are organic molecules mechanistically permissible, but also direct evidence of their existence, in astounding proportions, elsewhere than on Earth is a fact."

"Astounding proportions , means what, exactly? Please quantify "astounding proportions" and provide evidence of this outlandish claim.

quote:
These are the stuff of organic chemistry, the study of compounds producing, or produced by living organisms; and these are the kinds of reaction, which it now seems certain, are taking place between the stars.

"Between the stars"? In interstellar space, you mean? Where the temperature is 4 Kelvins and there's essentially nothing?

quote:
Spectroscopic analyses kept coming up with results that showed less carbon, oxygen, and nitrogen than everyone expected to find there.

quote:
The first substances detected in this way were nothing more than simple connections of the most common atoms: cyanogens (CN), carbon monoxide (CO), and hydrogen cyanide (HCN) But then formaldehyde (H2CO) was found, and before long formic acid (HCOOH), methanol (CH2OH) acetaldehyde (HCOCH3) and methyl firmate (HCOOCH3) turned up. One doesn't have to be a chemist to see that the progression is toward ever more complex organic compounds.

Acetaldehyde is rather far removed from cytochrome-C much less DNA.

quote:
The chemical reactions permissible under cold conditions have been shown to be capable of producing a very high level of complexity of organic molecules, even up to the level of the basic constituent of all known life, DNA.

Evidence please. Where are those "peer-reviewed papers" that are always being demanded by the Anointed Ones?

quote:
It is a big jump from prebiotic molecules in interstellar clouds to primitive organisms on a comet, but it is not an unreasonable one. When a comet gets anywhere near the sun, its water melts and could mingle with the trapped dust to produce a solution of organic molecules which, we know from spectroscopic analysis of Khoutek's comet in 1973, includes amino acids and heterocyclic compounds.

What? No DNA? No critters? Porquoi?

[quote]In other words, we don't depend on chance alone, but on chance guided by the laws of nature, and that should be enough. [quote]

"Chance guided by the laws of nature"-> humans.

That "should be enough." Do not forget A>B>C>D, the prime evolutionary scientific equation.

quote:
That made it seem as though life were an inevitable product of high probability varieties of chemical reactions, and that the formation of life on the primordial Earth could not have been avoided.

All indications are that, given the constituency of the primordial?biosphere, the formation of life as we know it appears inevitable.


Not exactly Francis Crick's take on DNA synthesis.

quote:
That means that of the 390 million civilizations in our galaxy, only 260 are as primitive as we are?an inconsiderable number. All the rest (meaning just about all of them) are more advanced than we are.

SETI instruments are simply overflowing with transmissions received from all those "civilizations" out there.

Well done, sir. Truly *science*.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by achristian1985, posted 02-18-2010 12:08 AM achristian1985 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by Panda, posted 12-12-2010 1:24 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

  
Panda
Member (Idle past 2004 days)
Posts: 2688
From: UK
Joined: 10-04-2010


Message 129 of 609 (596029)
12-12-2010 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 128 by BarackZero
12-12-2010 12:57 PM


Re: logical ramifications of evolution
BarackZero writes:

aChristian1985 wrote:


You should wait here in this thread until aChristian1985 replies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by BarackZero, posted 12-12-2010 12:57 PM BarackZero has not yet responded

Robert Byers
Member (Idle past 2659 days)
Posts: 640
From: Toronto,canada
Joined: 02-06-2004


Message 130 of 609 (605957)
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple.
The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.

One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state and so unrelated to ideas of separation of religion and government.
One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.
Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.


Replies to this message:
 Message 131 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-22-2011 9:30 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 132 by Coyote, posted 02-22-2011 9:34 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 133 by jar, posted 02-22-2011 9:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 134 by Taq, posted 02-23-2011 11:32 AM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 135 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 12:13 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 136 by NoNukes, posted 02-23-2011 12:14 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded
 Message 137 by Rahvin, posted 02-23-2011 12:33 PM Robert Byers has responded

  
Dr Adequate
Member
Posts: 16107
Joined: 07-20-2006
Member Rating: 7.7


Message 131 of 609 (605963)
02-22-2011 9:30 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple.
The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.

They put the Establishment Clause in the Constitution.

Arguably when creationism was still plausible there would have been a legitimate secular purpose in teaching it. Now that it's just a religious dogma, there's no reason for teaching it any more than teaching the Bodily Assumption of the Virgin Mary.

Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.

Judges disagree with you.

One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state ...

And if the state paid the Corps of Engineers to build churches, you could argue that the Corps of Engineers are not the state. But the argument would seem somewhat tendentious.

If the state pays someone to establish some religious view, then the state is establishing that religious view. If you deny that, then what teeth does the Establishment Clause have?

One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.

Is the same true of teaching that the Earth is round rather than flat? Does failure to teach flat-Earthism constitute censorship and a breach of the law?

Or do you want your argument only to apply to the silly ideas that you wish to be taught?

Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by shadow71, posted 02-23-2011 5:00 PM Dr Adequate has responded

Coyote
Member (Idle past 397 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 132 of 609 (605964)
02-22-2011 9:34 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


Creationist nonsense solidly refuted
The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple.
The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.

The U.S. Supreme Court disagrees. See their Edwards decision.

One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state and so unrelated to ideas of separation of religion and government.

See above.

One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.

Nonsense. Some ideas are grounded in science and others are grounded in unsupported ancient tribal myths.

Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.

One word: Dover.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

jar
Member
Posts: 31519
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.0


Message 133 of 609 (605965)
02-22-2011 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


Robert Byers writes:

The argument for American schools i always prevail with is simple.
The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.

One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for. Schools are not the state and so unrelated to ideas of separation of religion and government.
One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.
Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.

So we should teach that Nun threw up and the vomit became the universe?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Taq
Member
Posts: 8101
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 4.2


Message 134 of 609 (606024)
02-23-2011 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


The founding Yankee and Southern Puritan/Protestant people did not in any way put in their constitution anything to ban God or Genesis as truth or option for truth on origins in public institutions where the issue comes up.
Therefore there is no law against creationism in biology class etc.

There is a law. It is called the Establishment Clause. It is found in the Constitution. Look into it.

One can simply say the state is not everything the state pays for.

And yet it is. Public schools are paid for with public tax money which places public schools under the Establishment Clause (as well as the 14th Ammendment which puts States under the same constitutional laws as the federal government).

One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.

If we were talking about Idea Class you might have a point, but we aren't. We are talking about Science Class, and creationism is not science. On top of that, creationism as part of a science class has no secular purpose and excessively entangles the government in religious matters. This means that creationism fails the Lemon test.

The whole point of the Establishment Clause is that it necessarily censors what the government can say. That is the whole point of the clause.

Creationism is on soldi ground for all freedoms in schools on these issues and simply needs people to push the matter in politics and in court cases.

Why not push creationism to scientists as a matter of science?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 135 of 609 (606027)
02-23-2011 12:13 PM
Reply to: Message 130 by Robert Byers
02-22-2011 8:58 PM


Not censorship
Robert Byers writes:

One could also say the present law of censorship by addressing conclusions about origins to kids and then banning creationism(s) and teaching opposite ideas that deny creationism is in fact brwaking the very law it invokes for the censorship.

Exactly what law of censorship is involved when the state directs one of its employees what curriculum to teach during performance of the employee's duties?

If you've always prevailed using these arguments, you must be restriction your "debates" to groups of like minded people.

Would it also be censorship if the state prevented a teacher from going beyond the allowed curriculum and to actually ridicule Genesis in a biology class?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 130 by Robert Byers, posted 02-22-2011 8:58 PM Robert Byers has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019