EUROPEANS WARNED OF THE "DANGERS OF CREATIONISM"

Anything that doesn't have to do with luthiery can be discussed here. Please be moderate.

Moderators: kiwigeo, Jeremy D

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

EUROPEANS WARNED OF THE "DANGERS OF CREATIONISM"

Post by Serge » Wed Oct 10, 2007 8:51 pm

A text by Dr Chuck Missler,


The idea that we are all simply the result of random chance has become embedded in Western culture - here in the United States, in Europe, and elsewhere. The premise that life is accidental pervades, not just biology, but also the fields of psychology, our social and political sciences, our news media, entertainment, and, of course, our public schools.

In last week's eNews we brought this issue to your attention, today we are going to follow up with an in-depth look the outcome of Thursday's vote: On October 4th the Council of Europe's Parliamentary Assembly passed a resolution titled "The Dangers of Creationism in Education" that firmly opposes the teaching of creation and intelligent design in public school classrooms. The "non-binding" resolution is indicative of the widespread opposition to intelligent design among Europe's political leaders. These events do not bode well for Bible-believing Christians, and are no doubt a foreshadowing of things to come.

The text of the resolution, which passed by a 2 to 1 margin, states that: "The Parliamentary Assembly is worried about the possible ill-effects of the spread of creationist ideas within our education systems and about the consequences for our democracies. If we are not careful, creationism could become a threat to human rights which are a key concern of the Council of Europe... The Parliamentary Assembly therefore urges the member states, and especially their education authorities to firmly oppose the teaching of creationism as a scientific discipline on an equal footing with the theory of evolution and in general resist presentation of creationist ideas in any discipline other than religion and to promote the teaching of evolution as a fundamental scientific theory in the school curriculum."

"Therein Lies The Danger..."

Perhaps most disturbing is the resolution's description of the "extremists" who believe that what the Bible says is true: "The war on the theory of evolution and on its proponents most often originates in forms of religious extremism which are closely allied to extreme right-wing political movements. The creationist movements possess real political power. The fact of the matter, and this has been exposed on several occasions, is that some advocates of strict creationism are out to replace democracy by theocracy... Investigation of the creationists' growing influence shows that the arguments between creationism and evolution go well beyond intellectual debate. If we are not careful, the values that are the very essence of the Council of Europe will be under direct threat from creationist fundamentalists..."

The Council of Europe also claims that because Creationism is a "total rejection of science" it is "one of the most serious threats to human rights and civic rights." Yet even more troubling to the Assembly is the spread of intelligent design, which "presented in a more subtle way, seeks to portray its approach as scientific, and therein lies the danger." The resolution also describes Creationists as pseudo-scientists who "sow doubt and confusion."

The Assembly then goes on to inextricably link evolution with the fight against AIDS and infections disease and even global warming: "Denying [evolution] could have serious consequences for the development of our societies. Advances in medical research with the aim of effectively combating infectious diseases such as AIDS are impossible if every principle of evolution is denied. One cannot be fully aware of the risks involved in the significant decline in biodiversity and climate change if the mechanisms of evolution are not understood."

Rather than encouraging open scientific debate, the Council of Europe is employing fear-mongering and government-imposed censorship to stifle intelligent design - which they view as a growing threat. The good news is that more people are opening their eyes to the truth.

Why Do They Feel Threatened?

The more we learn about universe, the more obvious it becomes that we are not the result of random chance. The discovery of DNA, in particular, has radically transformed modern science and changed how many look at the origin of life. DNA is a digital, error-correcting, and self-replicating code; and within its complicated and elegant structure are the blueprints of every living thing on the planet. According to Dr. Jerry Bergman, a professor of science at Northwest College, "At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead, yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion chemical letters. This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! If all the chemical letters in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times!"

Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. The chances of winning the state lottery every week of your life from the age of 18 to 99 are better than the odds of a single-celled organism being formed by random chance. Likewise, the probability of spontaneous generation is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein. It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.

http://www.khouse.org/
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Re: EUROPEANS WARNED OF THE "DANGERS OF CREATIONISM&quo

Post by Dennis Leahy » Wed Oct 10, 2007 11:20 pm

Serge wrote:A text by Dr Chuck Missler,


The idea that we are all simply the result of random chance ...

The more we learn about universe, the more obvious it becomes that we are not the result of random chance. ...

Random chance cannot account for the complex design of DNA. It is statistically and mathematically impossible. ... It is impossible. The evidence all points to the unavoidable conclusion that we not the product of chance or evolution, but the result of intelligent design.

http://www.khouse.org/
Hey Serge, can we still be mates if I think creationism is hogwash, that it has taken over 4 billion years of evolution to form the dna in the plants and animals in existence on Earth today, and that the evolutionary forces are still in full swing? I'm comfortable with people believing that "God" started the chain of events for the "evolutionary forces", as in "God lit the fuse for the Big Bang", then God stepped back and is watching it unfold. If there was any intelligent design, it was the inclusion of randomness in the equations. Go just about anywhere on the planet, and start digging. I'm comfortable with you saying God created all of it, all the evidence that shows more and more complex organisms the closer to the surface of the hole, and less and less complex organisms the deeper down you dig.

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Re: EUROPEANS WARNED OF THE "DANGERS OF CREATIONISM&

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:11 am

[quote="Dennis Leahy ]Hey Serge, can we still be mates if I think creationism is hogwash,
Dennis[/quote]

Of course Dennis, you and i can still be mates even if our views of reality differ and i must applaud your intellectual honesty on what you believe mate. :D It is just a matter of being open minded and ready to be challenged in what we hold dear as being the truth and i see that you you are not afraid to express yourself freely on a difficult subject, rest assured that i will respect your point of view but will try to demonstrate that evolution has not produced one single bit of evidence on transitional changes over millions or billions of years as proclaimed in many circles of science, for me, it takes just as much faith to believe that we evolved from nothing to something.

My goal in posting this is not to create camps or debates but rather, i value each point of view so yours is welcome, i just take all the opportunities i get to freely discuss on this subject, my point of view isn't based on just "blind faith" or religiosities as many would like to think but rather from the evidence collected both in the secular and humanistic views of the world and also what both camps(evolutionists and creationists) have to offer, add to that what the Intelligent design theory has to offer and you have part of my reasons for posting this text.

Depending on what we believe, some basic questions will have differing answers such as:

-Where do i come from?
-What am i doing here?
-Do i have a purpose?
-What is my destiny?
-Where does morality fit in all of this?
-Is there such a thing as "Absolute Truth" ?

The DNA sequence shows me clearly that the information has to be stored in the cells by an Intelligent designer who can also be proven by Irreduceable complexity( take the flagellum for instance).

The latest archeology discoveries show that instead of having a tree with branches, there is rather separate and independant lines of life.

Cosmology has demonstrated that the universe that we thought as being infinite is now seen as Finite, that it will have an end.

The Bible is of course my main source for faith but i'm still able to look in differing fields of science with an open mind to look for evidence.

I too have studied in the secular world but their views don't convince me of what reality is.

YF Serge
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Re: EUROPEANS WARNED OF THE "DANGERS OF CREATIONISM&

Post by Dennis Leahy » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:01 am

Serge wrote:Of course Dennis, you and i can still be mates even if our views of reality differ ... rest assured that i will respect your point of view
Excellent! We have mutual respect. That's firm footing.
Serge wrote:... will try to demonstrate that evolution has not produced one single bit of evidence on transitional changes ...
Other than a few creatures such as sharks and members of the 'gator clan that evolved into extremely efficient life forms long ago and have held those shapes for millions of years, just about all other examples of life from one celled organisms to complex organisms clearly show evolutionary change in the fossil record. Dig deep, and you'll find simple fish and less variety of fish. Dig shallow, and the fossil fish are much more complex and varied. Mammals are probably even better examples of evolutionary change throughout the fossil record. And, if you simply refuse to believe in evolution because you cannot witness it in your lifetime or in your laboratory, then I would say to focus on the reality of mutations evolving viruses.

If you want to tell me that you believe that God started the evolutionary process, I'm fine with that. Though I would disagree, I would even be OK with you saying that God foresaw and/or planned the seemingly random chance events causing the mutations giving rise to new species.
Serge wrote:My goal in posting this is not to create camps or debates but rather, i value each point of view so yours is welcome, i just take all the opportunities i get to freely discuss on this subject...
Good. I normally never take place in these discussions. We will not change each other's point of view. All we can do is state our own point of view.
Serge wrote: -Where do i come from?
-What am i doing here?
-Do i have a purpose?
-What is my destiny?
-Where does morality fit in all of this?
-Is there such a thing as "Absolute Truth" ?
I think questions like these are the root of the problem. Some folks need a neat and tidy answer for everything, and evolution, with its randomness and fluctuations, is simply not tidy. My answers to the above questions are:

-Where do i come from?
The question assumes that in reality, "I" am separate from the universe, and "came into" it. I think the premise is incorrect, and that Siddhartha Gautama was right on that one.

-What am i doing here?
Whatever I want to try to accomplish.

-Do i have a purpose?
If I decide I want to select some specific goal(s).

-What is my destiny?
I don't believe in preordained destiny. I don't know my destiny, and don't believe anyone knows theirs.

-Where does morality fit in all of this?
I have decided to "be nice to" plants and animals (including humans) while I am alive. (promotion of biodiversity, attempting to rescue species threatened by human greed, speaking out against injustices, etc.)

-Is there such a thing as "Absolute Truth" ?
Yes, the laws of physics are examples of absolute truth. I don't believe that God could alter the laws of physics, if there is a sentient God. In fact my view of God differs from the Christian concepts that I was raised with, and is closer to Buddhism. The Christian concept of God, universe and man as I was taught can be diagrammed by drawing two separate circles: one circle is labeled "God"; one is the "universe." A tiny dot somewhere within the "universe" circle then represents man. The Buddhist concept might be diagrammed by drawing a single circle, and labeling it "one." That's all there is, there are no subdivided parts. Even the "man" subdivision is an illusion. So, I equate God and Universe, and I believe that probably the Universe, though it is a whole and undivided system (kind of like the Gaia concept is to the Earth), is probably not sentient as a unit. Now, to finalize the Buddhist diagram, erase the circle, and label it "nothingness." (there are no divisions or borders to "oneness.")

Serge wrote:The DNA sequence shows me clearly that the information has to be stored in the cells by an Intelligent designer who can also be proven by Irreduceable complexity( take the flagellum for instance).
That's faith, not science. "Irreducable complexity" is a human mind attempting to form a definitive answer to fit into a preconceived notion.
Serge wrote:The latest archeology discoveries show that instead of having a tree with branches, there is rather separate and independant lines of life.
Serge, there is no such thing as "faith-based science." That's like "dry water." The only "scientists" supporting creationism are faith-based men who have taken some science classes and know a few buzzwords, and maybe some have even been issued credentials. These are faith-based men attempting to take a few "scientific" observations, and cram them into a biblical notion of living matter. These are not objective scientists.
Serge wrote:Cosmology has demonstrated that the universe that we thought as being infinite is now seen as Finite, that it will have an end.
Not sure where you're going with that, finite in terms of the time continuum, of finite in terms of cosmic matter? On the one hand, the particles and energy at the perimeter of the previous Big Bang may indicate (to some) the edge/end of the universe. Studying red-shift and blue-shift, some scientists say the known universe will eventually stop expanding (once the energy of the Big Bang is played out), and that the known universe will then begin to slowly collapse, until it finally explodes again in yet another Big Bang, ad infinitum. Who knows, perhaps the sensitivity of the instrumentation on Earth is at present only able to see as far as the edges of "this universe", and maybe there is vast space between trillions of other "universes" that we are unable to detect. What does any of this have to do with simplistic creationism?
Serge wrote: The Bible is of course my main source for faith but i'm still able to look in differing fields of science with an open mind to look for evidence.

I too have studied in the secular world but their views don't convince me of what reality is.

YF Serge
I'm OK with anyone and every one defing their view of God, or rejecting the notion of God's existence. Even using the analogy of the three blind men who each came in contact with a small part of an elephant, and went back to the village and described their "vision" of what an elephant is, the religions of the world are so different that, in my opinion, they cannot all be correct (though it is certainly possible that they are all incorrect) in their understanding and teachings about god, the universe, life, man, etc.

I think that if you really want to know the truth about creationism and evolution, then grab a shovel and walk away from every human, forget their teachings, their science, and their beliefs. Go anywhere on Earth with deep sedimentary layers. Dig. Observe. Dig some more, and observe some more... You'll be time traveling, back through the true history of the Earth. See it as turning the pages of the history book of God's process of creation. What is God showing you? That's the truth.

Serge, I NEVER, NEVER, NEVER, enter into religious or philosophical discussions like this. NEVER! I am very surprised that I am typing all this. I certainly will not change you, nor you me. I guess the subject of creationism really makes my hair stand up, because I have a young daughter that is going through the public school system, and I know that there are Senators and Congresspersons in the US that want to force my daughter to see creationism as an equal scientific theory alongside evolution. This thought gets me very pissed off. So there, I vented. Now, let's go build some guitars!

Dennis
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Kim
Admin
Posts: 4376
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: South of Perth WA

Post by Kim » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:01 am

:D

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:39 am

Dear Dennis, far from me the idea to say that i would posess the truth! :lol: The Truth really is independant of what i might say here. :wink:

You and i can surely agree on one thing though and it is that since there are clearly 2 camps(evolutionism and creationism) and even a 3rd one with the Intelligent design one, each one of these theories have more than enough data to back up their own claims and are capable of human interpretations and errors but science itself is independant of any theories or religious beliefs from any of these 3 camps, science is not about just theories, science is about repeatable experiences that can demonstrate without a shadow of a doubt of the veracity of true and credible observances in time. I love science too you know! :D :wink:

My first post was also put there to demonstrate that in a so called free and democratic societey, some groups are marginalized for not following the crowd and to me, that is plain wrong, there should be freedom of choice for the array of scientific theories that are out there, since there is more than one, they cannot all be true or all totally wrong and it would be fair that every theory be presented so that everyone could make up their own mind.

[quote="Dennis Leahy"] Other than a few creatures such as sharks and members of the 'gator clan that evolved into extremely efficient life forms long ago and have held those shapes for millions of years, just about all other examples of life from one celled organisms to complex organisms clearly show evolutionary change in the fossil record. Dig deep, and you'll find simple fish and less variety of fish. Dig shallow, and the fossil fish are much more complex and varied. Mammals are probably even better examples of evolutionary change throughout the fossil record. And, if you simply refuse to believe in evolution because you cannot witness it in your lifetime or in your laboratory, then I would say to focus on the reality of mutations evolving viruses. [quote="Dennis Leahy"]

You're right about one thing here bro and it is that there is a huge fossil record to choose our bones from, the only problem is, there is no evidence of transitional form, not just a missing link but a missing chain everywhere in the whole fossil record. The bones will tell you that there was an animal or a complex organism in each layer that you dig in but nothing anywhere to clearly show ancestry between the so called "species" of even the most complex invertebrates. Darwin himself claimed that there was a lack of transitional form in the rock strata-The origin of species, p323. and that it was the most obvious and serious objection which could be urged against the theory of evolution. As for the reality of mutations evolving viruses, i would certainly be willing to call it adaptation to the external and internal environment like even human beings can adapt to pollution, viruses adapt and become resistant to antibiotics. Millions of years? Young earth? no matter what you and me believe, the real question is: Where does the evidence honestly lead?

I'll be glad to look at any transitional form if you have a link to share with me though! :D In the meantime, since we're both open-minded grown ups, i have an interesting link for you on Origins, if i'm capable of looking in the evolutionary theory for truth, i'm sure you can make the same effort and look at this documentary:

http://christiananswers.net/creation/aq ... oo-en.html

Have you ever heard of a substance in the human body called Laminin? It is something that holds cells together in every living being on this planet, thought you might find interesting to see how it looks like, nice signature huh? :D

Image

For the "finite universe", i invite you to see the Science of God thread, Dr Chuck Missler has got some really great thought-provoking stuff!

As for the existential questions that i have raised and that you superbly answered, i do respect your beliefs although mine differ very significantly, i'll keep that for another thread, you're right, time for guitars now! :lol:

By the way - thought you'd be interested in knowing that the official scientific symbol for Laminin is LAMB2 - HA!
Last edited by Serge on Fri Nov 02, 2007 2:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 11, 2007 8:49 am

The only thing animal in me is the fur on ma chest and the fact that they call me "Bear" around here, for the rest, i'm rather human and "spiritual"! :lol: :wink:
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
kiwigeo
Admin
Posts: 10582
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:57 pm
Location: Adelaide, Sth Australia

Post by kiwigeo » Thu Oct 11, 2007 12:53 pm

Serge wrote:
You're right about one thing here bro and it is that there is a huge fossil record to choose our bones from, the only problem is, there is no evidence of transitional form, not just a missing link but a missing chain everywhere in the whole fossil record.
Hey there Serge,

Being a Geologist Im duty bound to get involved in the C versus E debate. I wont be putting alot of time into same as its a debate that cant be won, the two sides of the argument are so diametricaly opposed )its basically religion versus science) that any sort of consensus on any aspect of the argument is wishful thinking.

The subject of the lack of transitional fossil forms is one that is frequently brought up by the Creationists. It shows that the Creationists dont have a good understanding of evolution or science for that matter. Science is a dynamic entity...models and theories change as more information comes to hand and different scientists work on the data.

Darwins original theory of evolution envisaged a slow gradual change in the morphology of life forms through time. Some years ago Eldridge and Jay-Gould put forward their theory of punctuated equilibria. In a nutshell they postulated that evolution progressed in steps followed by long periods of no change....ie the equilibria was periodically "punctuated" by shorter periods of rapid change.

It should also be noted that the Creationists usually focus on the macro fossil record and neglect to consider the microfossil record. The latter is by far more abundant and complete than the former. Marine microfossils have a much better chance of being preserved than larger macrofossils and because they are more abundant than larger life forms and they get deposited in a marine environment there is more chance of a more complete record being preserved. Its one reason we use them for dating and correlation work in the oil and gas exploration game.

Cheers Martin

Paul B

Post by Paul B » Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:02 pm

kiwigeo wrote:
Darwins original theory of evolution envisaged a slow gradual change in the morphology of life forms through time. Some years ago Eldridge and Jay-Gould put forward their theory of punctuated equilibria. In a nutshell they postulated that evolution progressed in steps followed by long periods of no change....ie the equilibria was periodically "punctuated" by shorter periods of rapid change.
Cheers Martin
Punctuated equilibria, I like that, never heard of it, but I like it.

I got pretty disenchanted at uni when biology lecturers would tell us about evolution, but they clearly didn't understand what drives it. Punctuated equilibria is a great description of the mechanics behind evolution. The equilibria moves only when condititions change. Cool, thanks Martin, I might read up on that.

User avatar
kiwigeo
Admin
Posts: 10582
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:57 pm
Location: Adelaide, Sth Australia

Post by kiwigeo » Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:17 pm

Not a new theory, its probably at least 10 years old now but for numerous reasons hasnt received much publicity.

Stephen Jay-Gould was a gifted scientist and writer with a knack of being able to explain some pretty complex scientific in a way that the layman can understand. He's written a truckload of books on evolution...and creationism and theyre all worth a read.

Paul B

Post by Paul B » Thu Oct 11, 2007 1:53 pm

kiwigeo wrote:Not a new theory, its probably at least 10 years old now but for numerous reasons hasnt received much publicity.
That explains it, I went to uni more than ten years ago. Should have written about it then, now it would be the "Burns Theory". Well, maybe not, never did go for that naming crap after yourself thing.
kiwigeo wrote:Stephen Jay-Gould was a gifted scientist and writer with a knack of being able to explain some pretty complex scientific in a way that the layman can understand. He's written a truckload of books on evolution...and creationism and theyre all worth a read.
That's quite a knack, I sometimes have trouble explaining complex science to fellow scientists who work in my field. But I suppose there are dufuses everywhere, I just hope it's them and not me who's the dufus.

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 11, 2007 3:11 pm

Hey there Serge,

Being a Geologist Im duty bound to get involved in the C versus E debate. I wont be putting alot of time into same as its a debate that cant be won, the two sides of the argument are so diametricaly opposed )its basically religion versus science) that any sort of consensus on any aspect of the argument is wishful thinking.[quote="kiwigeo"]

Hi brother Martin,

no debate is necessary my brother, as i said to Dennis already, it is not what we both believe in that really matters but where the evidence leads and in my mind, this is not religion vs science but rather Truth vs Theories i will readily admit that in the name religions of men, bad things have been done but my endeavour is one of truth, the fact that i love the Lord doesn't make me a religious person but rather a man of faith which is totally different. I'm not saying that any of these theories are superioir to the other but that in all fairness, each view should be given an equal chance at being taught, wheteher it is evolution or creation, they are both just scientific theories, not pure science by definition.


[quote="kiwigeo"]. Science is a dynamic entity...models and theories change as more information comes to hand and different scientists work on the data. [quote="kiwigeo"]

Theories come and go, i agree with you bro, some stay but pure science still has it's place. Here's a what a former atheist has to say after a thorough investigation in both scientific theories vs matters of faith and what he has found changed many of his perceptions on science. A lot of visual there! :D

http://leestrobel.master.com/texis/mast ... %20creator

[quote="kiwigeo"]Darwins original theory of evolution envisaged a slow gradual change in the morphology of life forms through time. Some years ago Eldridge and Jay-Gould put forward their theory of punctuated equilibria. In a nutshell they postulated that evolution progressed in steps followed by long periods of no change....ie the equilibria was periodically "punctuated" by shorter periods of rapid change

Sounds like a reasonable explanation Martin but what the fossil record shows and what is observed on the field from the most ancient fossils found on earth to the most recent is totally contrary to what that theory says, just for the record, i do look what is being done in the evolutionary discipline too but to this date, still no transitional form has been observed to conclusively help even that recent theory.

Check this link mate! :D

http://www.leestrobel.com/videoserver/v ... robelT1027

[quote="kiwigeo"]It should also be noted that the Creationists usually focus on the macro fossil record and neglect to consider the microfossil record. . .[quote="kiwigeo"]

I must disagree a bit here Martin, creationists will also look at microfossil records but having a different perspective on how origins can be interpreted with it.

Look guys, i'll be the first one to understand that people don't want religions of men( Roman catholicism, Protestantism, Mormonism, Hindhuism, Buddhism, etc) in classes and to this, i agree totally, religiosities should stay in their own proper congregations. Yes, you read well, i did write that! :lol: But once passed the offuscating word religion, there is something called Creation that involves a Creator that is independant of religions made by men and which deserves to be studied even if it would mean that people would attempt at disproving Him, for me, there is a mountain of solid evidence that cries out His Name and that can be proven both scientificly and with the texts that He left us, even from outside sources too! :D

And I have a relationship with Him ! :D
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
kiwigeo
Admin
Posts: 10582
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:57 pm
Location: Adelaide, Sth Australia

Post by kiwigeo » Thu Oct 11, 2007 4:20 pm

Paul B wrote:
That explains it, I went to uni more than ten years ago. Should have written about it then, now it would be the "Burns Theory". Well, maybe not, never did go for that naming crap after yourself thing.
When I first started studying Geology, Plate Tectonics wasnt widely taught...even though Wagner had thought up the theory back in the 1920's. In the 70's when I started my science degree they were still teaching Geosynclinal Theory based on The Appelachian Model. How things have changed...and thats the the thing with science, it doesnt stand still, it's a dynamic entity... its always moving forward but at the same time its also going back and revisiting old areas and presenting them in a new light.

Anyone who believes Darwin's Origin of the Species is the current state of evolutionary science is sadly behind the times. One needs only to pick up the latest edition of one of the popular science magazines to see this.

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:27 pm

Martin, my only big problem with any kind of scientific theory is in how they explain the origins. there is more than one view of things.

At the base of this discussion lies a more serious problem than to know what theory is good or not, i'm all in favor of everything being taught, even Darwinism from the first days to now but creation views and Intelligent design as well, we all have a capacity to make up our own minds especially in college.

Not everything has it's explanation in the natural like evolution teaches and to me, it would be just fair to see all these theories be presented on an equal basis, that's all but hey, i'm not on any school board yet so nothing to worry about bro...

...i sure will pray about it tho! :D :wink:
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

Paul B

Post by Paul B » Thu Oct 11, 2007 9:49 pm

We don't have to agree Sergio mate.

There's room enough for all.

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 11, 2007 10:42 pm

:D
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
Dennis Leahy
Blackwood
Posts: 872
Joined: Wed Oct 10, 2007 12:32 am
Location: Duluth, MN, US
Contact:

Post by Dennis Leahy » Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:13 am

Seems kind of silly to quote myself, but

"Some folks need a neat and tidy answer for everything, and evolution, with its randomness and fluctuations, is simply not tidy."

I was not familiar with the names Eldridge and Jay-Gould, nor the term "punctuated equilibria", but knew of and accepted the concept of evolutionary bursts. I think that lack of understanding of the absence of linearity in the evolutionary process is one of the key "missing links" (pun intended) for quasi-scientific creationists.

The current scientific model of the evolutionary process is still evolving (dare I use two puns in a row?), and will probably be modified slightly as new data comes to light. This just isn't something simple that can be easily demonstrated in 15 minutes in a high school chemistry or physics class*, and probably never will be. That's no reason to leap to divine intervention as the answer, or allowing divine intervention to be injected into a complex scientific equation and offering it as another plausible "scientific possibility." It is a thinly veiled attempt to proselytize under the guise of a "scientific alternative theory." I don't want my kid to have to spend the time to decipher pseudoscience from science. Let my kid accept or reject specific religions somewhere other than public school. You don't want me to insist that your kid has to study the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a real alternative, do you?

I have watched magicians/illusionists perform tricks that are utterly baffling, even when viewed in slow motion replays. How was that done?! I can guess at the answer, but my lack of understanding should not induce me to leap to the conclusion that God must have intervened.

And, that concludes my participation in this thread. I want to spend my time exploring the evolution of the guitar, and maybe, just maybe, helping to instantiate an evolutionary burst in modern guitar engineering.

Dennis

*When I was in high school, my brilliant friend Jeff Kuhn did demonstrate an experiment initially done by Stanley Miller, where a replication of primordial Earth atmosphere in a flask was jolted with an electric charge, resulting in the formation of amino acids.
Another damn Yank!

User avatar
Rod True
Siberian Tiger
Posts: 234
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:18 am
Location: Abbotsford, BC Canada

Post by Rod True » Fri Oct 12, 2007 4:00 am

And, that concludes my participation in this thread. I want to spend my time exploring the evolution of the guitar, and maybe, just maybe, helping to instantiate an evolutionary burst in modern guitar engineering.
Aren't guitars created :lol: (ducking now)

I just don't get involved with these types of discussion.
"I wish one of the voices in your head would tell you to shut the hell up." - Warren De Montegue

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:40 am

Rod True wrote: Aren't guitars created :lol: (ducking now)

I just don't get involved with these types of discussion.
:lol: :rolf

Hey Rod, ya better duck dude, this discussion might evolve (pun intended) into a food fight and end up in a sort of El kabong frenzy! :wink:
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
BillyT
Blackwood
Posts: 355
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 7:57 pm
Location: Location Location

Post by BillyT » Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:59 pm

Rod The Infidel wrote:Aren't guitars created (ducking now) :lol:
GEESH ROD! THEY EVOLVED!!

Look at all the shaving/dust in your shop! They slowly came together by some universal quirk, at random, and formed into what we now know as a guitar! First ukuleles, then mandos, then banjos(Gee! Where's the giant meteor when you need one),...then...Guitars ! Through billions of years !!
Sergemu wrote:and end up in a sort of El kabong frenzy!
Sounds like fun! :lol: :lol: :lol:

If humans evolved from monkees why are there still monkees :?: :roll:

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Fri Oct 12, 2007 9:12 pm

Pastor BillyT wrote:
Rod The Infidel wrote:Aren't guitars created (ducking now) :lol:
GEESH ROD! THEY EVOLVED!!

Look at all the shaving/dust in your shop! They slowly came together by some universal quirk, at random, and formed into what we now know as a guitar! First ukuleles, then mandos, then banjos(Gee! Where's the giant meteor when you need one),...then...Guitars ! Through billions of years !!

I agree Billy, Rod needs his doctrines be straightened out! :lmao
Sergemu wrote:and end up in a sort of El kabong frenzy!
Sounds like fun! :lol: :lol: :lol:

We used to mandobong but the effects never lasted long enough, people would get back up after 30 seconds, now with factory guitars, that is an whole different story! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If humans evolved from monkees why are there still monkees :?: :roll:
Or more monkeys being able to talk clearly or sing "the soul of rock and roll" after being in contact with humans :?: :roll:

Image

:D
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

User avatar
Ron Wisdom
Blackwood
Posts: 420
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 1:18 am
Location: Arkansas, USA

Post by Ron Wisdom » Sat Oct 13, 2007 4:05 am

whoops.

User avatar
Kim
Admin
Posts: 4376
Joined: Wed Sep 26, 2007 8:32 pm
Location: South of Perth WA

Post by Kim » Sat Oct 13, 2007 8:24 am

Hmm

Image

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

User avatar
kiwigeo
Admin
Posts: 10582
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 5:57 pm
Location: Adelaide, Sth Australia

Post by kiwigeo » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:20 pm

Kim,

Thats actually a good example of de-evolution.

Cheers Martin

User avatar
Serge
Blackwood
Posts: 543
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 10:43 am

Post by Serge » Thu Oct 18, 2007 10:41 am

Dennis Leahy wrote:
Dennis

*When I was in high school, my brilliant friend Jeff Kuhn did demonstrate an experiment initially done by Stanley Miller, where a replication of primordial Earth atmosphere in a flask was jolted with an electric charge, resulting in the formation of amino acids.
Yeah, i have heard of that experiment too Dennis, sadly,many people turned to atheism because of it too but Stanley Miller himself admitted 40 years later that the chemical mix that he used back in the 50's could not be used to create new life since the level of oxygen used would have been detrimental to the molecules needed for new life, ie he used the wrong materials, he had the wrong conditions and then got wrong results.

If you can, please watch this:

http://christiananswers.net/creation/aq ... oo-en.html

I'm not proselytising bro, i don't care about religions or what club people belong to, even if spaghetti is free there! :lol: :wink: The God that i worship is not about religion, in fact, He called the religious people of His time on earth a bunch of Hypocrits! :lol: He sure cares about a personal relationship with everyone on this planet though, even with those who don't want to hear about Him, may you find Him one day too!

Serge
Jesus, family, friends, guitar and mandolin : D

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 35 guests