If ToE has to explain the orgin of life to be satisfactory to you does it also have to explain the origin of the universe? How about the behavior of the chemical substances which make up the genome? The physics of the atoms that make up those?
Since evolution is affected by environmental changes do I have to include plate tectonics, climate change and asteroid strikes?
The knowledge we have is without real boundaries, of course, but there are still convenient places to draw lines and work within them. If I want to tell you the theory of how a car engine works it is convenient not to go into any detail of the chemistry of the fuel/air combustion. You probably know that gas burns and if you don't you can understand how an engine works without knowing how gas burns anyway.
Evolution is about life. It does not attempt to describe the behavior of anything that doesn't reproduce. Therefore starting with a reproducing entity is a perfectly reasonable boundary.
Chemistry is about atoms so starting with electrons and nuclei (ignoring quarks altogether) is a perfectly reasonable boundary.
Geology presupposes the earth exists with certain properties. Ignoring steller evolution and formation is a perfectly reasonable boundary.
Do you want no boundaries at all?
If you wish to take that view then fine. In the total compendium of what we know there are holes. Things we don't yet know as well as other things. I expect (and hope) there always will be. That doesn't mean that nothing is knowable to some greater degree. It just means we should keep on testing to improve our degree of confidence.
Not that I've noticed. Point taken. I will attempt to restrain myself. If someone want to start a topic on the "lines" between disciplines I might jump in. But it doesn't seem worth it to me since it might only be enumerating angels.
You make it sound like a zero-sum game. There doesn't have to be a winner and a loser. In fact, most Christians don't see it as winning and losing.
What confounds me is why the literalists would choose a path which sets up a win-lose confrontation. One way or another they loose.
If they actually succeeded in driving science out of the schools it would kill the economy in a few decades. If it stays in they don't have a story to tell. As evidenced here. (or, that should be as not "evidenced" here.)
quote:Since when was it unanimously decided that literal creationists lose?
I explained above. On a scientific basis there is enough evidence in to throw out YEC. I think OEC is gone to but can never figure out what they are claiming.
If they win on a political basis they wreak a big piece of the educational system.
If they leave the educational system intact and actually teach YEC along side science they get creamed. If you doubt that find a topic here that has come to a YEC winning conclusion (or any conclusion for that matter).
It occured in one of the Magelantic clouds at a distance of about 170,000 light years. If someone thinks the universe is less than 170 Kyrs old then I suggest they start a SN1987 thread and show how the trigonometric measurements are wrong and/or the multiple checks on light speed at the time of the explosion are wrong and/or any other way they can make it work. Of course, it is allowed to say "God is fooling us into thinking that's how long ago it happened by a mircle". That is a scientific loose of course.
The right way to handle this is to take the suggestion Galileo made to the Catholic Church 500 years ago and one that they finally got some century or so later. If the evidence says the bible is wrong then you are interpreting the bible incorrectly.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 05-02-2003]
It seems to have some fuzz in what is believed but I think it's safe to say that they say a minimum age for the universe is just over 6,000 years and a maxium is 20,000 or so (this is where it seems to get fuzzy).
OEC - old earth creationism The earth and universe is as determined by science. 4.5 Gyrs(giga years) and 13.7 respectively. However, living things are created by God. Now it gets really fuzzy. Some agree with YEC that the earth was empty until 6,000 years ago, others that each new creature was specially created. The ID'ers (at least some) think that most of evolution and the history of life on earth is correct but that some steps require a miracle.
A whole bunch (most ?) of both YEC'ers and OEC'ers agree with very, very fast evolution over a small number of Kyrs (kiloyears) that is whole new genera arising in maybe as little as a couple of kiloyears. But a number don't.
Beyond a rough idea of the age of the earth I can never get clear what the two camps think or what an individual in one camp will decide to say. So don't take my word for it.
Hmmm I think that is a clear case of TMI (too much information) isn't it
Welcome to the forum! It can be fun here, but it isn't easy. Good luck!
Darwinism is not science, it is political well as us Zusayan folk know it, Philosohpy. Philosophical dialectic-materialism turned dogmatic and as ever unscientific and anti-scientific. Unlike creationalism which much science supports so it should be recognised by the non-Zusayan barberians.
Do you care to demonstrate the assertions you have made here? I think this thread might be ok for the politicalization of Darwinism bu the others belong in other threads.
"much science supports" -- some here have waited, with varying degrees of patience, for this science. There are lots of threads here for you to post your evidence in support of creationism.
I don't know how you want to organize your posts but you might start with getting the age of the earth right.
[This message has been edited by NosyNed, 11-30-2003]
It is possible that it isn't intended to be racist. Instead it is to show how this individual feels about the term Xian. It is trying to say,perhaps, that all the terms, including xian, are, in some way, discriminatory.
However, I would suspend AZ just because s/he is obviously not going to do anything but assert her/his views with no attempt at debate.