Yall are Ignert sinners n’ yer gonna bern in hell n’ damnnation cuz gawd is pised at yer sinner ways, jesus is gonna lern’ ya, gonna lern’ ya hard’ y’all better git ready cuz gawds pised and gonna burn ya forever in the lake uh’ fir, burn baby burn ya sinners!
— So anyways I just tell them I’m a satanist and be done with it.
Nice points Wowser I totally agree with you. Ive decided to stop arguing this point cause it could go on forever. I know whats right and whats wrong and I totally disagree with evolution thats all. God has shown me the real light and maybe some of you will find it one of these days.
so you’re implying that at one time there was nothingness. A complete vaccuum devoid of even the tiniest particle that ever could exist. And then one day SHAZAM! A particle appears and this is repeated until we finally have that ball of matter that now forms the universe? To be clear, I’m not talking about particles moving into an area that was empty space before. What where these particles created from if nothing existed for them to be created?
His/her evolutionary dogma is boorish. Each one of his/her “arguments” is laced with fallacies from start to finish. Most disturbing, however, is his/her out right hypocrisy.
I not about to sort though all his posts and go line-by-line pointing everything logically wrong with his/her statements, because it would be too time consuming, redundant, and quiet frankly it isn’t my responsibility to educate or institute integrity in the man/woman.
Take his/her last post to wowser.
**Actually, Wowser, something comes from nothing all of the time. From Keith Harwood: You have a piece of empty space. Suddenly, out of nowhere, with nothing causing it, an electron and a positron will appear. **
Firstly, that is an “appeal authority”. Just because Keith Harwood thinks something can come from nothing doesn’t make it true. Of course, since Symphony wants to believe, something can come from nothing, he/she will blindly in faith believe it.
He/she states in response to the arguments in Darwin’s Black Box. Behe’s book and his “irreducible complexity” argument is nothing more than one big argument from incredulity. Basically, Behe is saying, “I can’t possibly imagine how this could have happened by natural causes, therefore Goddidit.” That is hardly what I would call scientific
However, correlation from his previous standard into his/her last post should read. Basically, Keith Harwood is saying, “I can’t possible see or imagine where this electron and proton came from, therefore it came from nothing.” That is in no way scientific (So we see his/her hypocrisy between the viewpoints).
A bit of history—Early evolutionist used to know the “fact” that flies spontaneous appeared/came to life from dead meat. Thus, absolutely proving life came from nothing. Of course with the invention of the microscope we can now see flies come from their larva.
What disturbs/bothers me the most about evolutionist is all the “facts” they are claiming know. I am a senior Aerospace student attending California Polytechnic State University and in all my studies of the Nobel Sciences I have yet to come across one “fact”. A common misconception about science is that it derives facts, however this is untrue. Science is only a method in which we collect empirical data and attempt to formulate a concept that will help us understand our world. Even the most famous formula, F=ma is not considered a fact; it is solely a concept we use to make predictions in physics.
Science is based on empirically collected. Data collected empirically in only as good as the instrumentation that is collecting it. We will never have perfect instrumentation, thus we will never have perfect data. Empirically derived methods have and never will be sufficient to constitute as facts. Facts are based on A Priori/purely rational reasoning alone, integration of A Posterior/empirical will never suffice.
The truth is, Evolutionist claim to have “facts” out of faith. Science, which they are constantly appealing to, is not in the factual realm of reasoning. Science has its value, (Hell; I have devoted most of my life to it) but it doesn’t and cannot nor is intended to produce facts.
Side Note: Did you see Symphony’s denial that America has strongly religious origins? How, obstinate can he/she be? Doesn’t our Pledge of Allegiance contain “one nation under God”? Do you not know it is illegal to burn money, since it is a Federal Document? Open you purse/wallet pull out a bill or coin, don’t you see “In God We Trust” written on it? Know the Declaration of Independence, “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”, “…that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator”. “…appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world…”.
First off, Symphony X should be applauded, his extensive knowledge on all things scientific is very impressive. Second, Brock, you gotta explore research from more sources than just the one’s that you agree with because it gives you a warm fuzzy feeling like everything is right and good with the universe because God is watching over us, and in charge. Now let me explain my take on God and evolution. I beleive that God is far more complex than most beleivers give him credit for, and I actually think that alot of the 'Beleivers" end up giving God a bad image. If you beleive in God, and that belief helps you to be a better person, and be nicer to your neighbors, and live a productive helpfull life, then right on! But don’t try to tell me about God, because you can’t possibly comprehend a being or an idea as huge as that, no-one can. Just like it is impossible at this time for scientists to fully comprehend an idea or being as huge as the universe. The only valid thing anyone can do is to continue to perform research, to figure everything out. God didn’t exactly create man in his image, but man has most certainly created God in his image. I beleive in a higher power, but it doesn’t resemble a kind old man in shiny white robes sitting on a throne in some extra-dimensional heaven, sorry to burst your bubble. I do beleive that it is possible that not just evolution, but all matter in existence could be guided by a higher power, with some grander purpose. What that purpose is , I don’t know. However, if there is a God, I think it is obvious that he/it wants us to persue science just as much as religion. To become masters of our environment, and our lives. So far I have seen science benefit man as much as or more than religion, and it is based on reason, provable reality. Organized religion is a load of crap IMO, but that doesn’t prevent me from believing in God. However, I don’t go around pointing out how wrong people are for not sharing my beliefs, with a smug, ‘God told me so’ kind of attitude. If your organized religion helps you to stay out of trouble, not beat your wife and kids, and be kind and respectfull to others, than stick with it. Just don’t try to tell me that now that you have found God and know the ‘Truth’ you want to save me to. With your idea of saving me being that I have to believe in God the same way you do. I do beleive in God, AND I believe in validated scientific evidence, so far God hasn’t disproved science’s validity, and science hasn’t disproved God’s existence. Science may have diproved the validity of some religious groups beliefs and holy artifacts, but that’s another story. Sorry about the long post, but I thought since everyone else wrote in length I might as well throw in my two cents. (Slow day at work) Happy memorial day everyone!
I’m with Brock on this one… evolution just doesn’t make any sense.
I know, I'll get slammed for saying this, but it's a simple fact. Nothing gets 'naturally' more complex, things get simple when nature takes its toll.
A single celled organism turned to a multi celled one as a defense mechanism not evolution. Yes, mutation occured, but that is micro, not macro evoution. The giraffe with the longest neck got the mosts food, so it was the strongest, so it bred and had offspring that also had long necks. Micro-evolution makes lots of sense, macro makes NO sense at all.
If the 'big bang' is true, where did all that mass come from? According to scientific law, matter can not be created or destroyed... so the 'ball' of stuff that blew up had all the matter in the entire universe in it? Um... where did all that matter come from?
I find it a lot more plausable that there is a God that created something from nothing... than all of a sudden, out of nothing, there appeared a giant mass that had all of the matter in the universe in it. *laugh* now who's stretching things?
Lots of claims, Neal, but you offer little evidence.Each one of his/her “arguments” is laced with fallacies from start to finish. It’s really easy to just wave your hand and say my arguments are laced with fallacies. Of course, if you can’t show what all of these fallacies are, then it is nothing but an unsupported claim. If you cannot show what these fallacies are in all my arguments, then I can reasonably conclude that you really don’t know and are trying to sweep everything away with one general assertion.I not about to sort though all his posts and go line-by-line pointing everything logically wrong with his/her statements, because it would be too time consuming, redundant, and quiet frankly it isn’t my responsibility to educate or institute integrity in the man/woman.***** This is nothing but a disguised ad hominem. You are questioning my integrity yet provide no evidence to back your claim of my lack of integrity. If you are going to claim that I am being dishonest, than provide evidence that I am being dishonest. If you cannot do this, you, just like other creationists I have debated with, are simply skirting the issues.Firstly, that is an “appeal authority”. Just because Keith Harwood thinks something can come from nothing doesn’t make it true.*** This is not appeal to authority because I am not claiming it just because Keith Harwood says it’s true…I was merely giving Harwood credit for his words and was not going to plagiarize him. I quoted him because I felt he put it in words better than I could. I’m not asking anyone here to take Harwood’s or my word for it because it’s something that can be investigated by everyone here in this forum. This type of work is done at the Fermi National Accelator laboratory. Everyone can see for themselves at http://www.fnal.gov/ Yes, something can come from nothing…this is known as the Uncertainty Principle in quantum physics. The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. Even though we can’t see them, we know that these virtual particles are “really there” in empty space because they leave a detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using spectroscopic techniques.Basically, Keith Harwood is saying, “I can’t possible see or imagine where this electron and proton came from, therefore it came from nothing.” No, Harwood is not just saying that. The appearance of virtual particles has been researched using experiments done in a complete vacuum.That is in no way scientific (So we see his/her hypocrisy between the viewpoints).**** So are you claiming that all the scientists at the Fermi lab are “not scientific?”
Seems to me that Jesus did not think too much of organized religon in his day either.
Empirically derived methods have and never will be sufficient to constitute as facts. Facts are based on A Priori/purely rational reasoning alone, integration of A Posterior/empirical will never suffice. The truth is, Evolutionist claim to have “facts” out of faith. Science, which they are constantly appealing to, is not in the factual realm of reasoning.***** Well, if you want to be philosophically nitpicky about the definition of “fact”, you are correct. While this type of argument is fine for a philosophy class, it has little use in the real world. When we say a thing is a fact, then, we only mean that its probability is an extremely high one: so high that we are not bothered by doubt about it and are ready to act accordingly. Like the fact that I’m sitting here typing this message now. According to your not very useful definition of fact, I cannot make that claim because I cannot know for 100% certainty if I’m really typing at this computer (I may be dreaming, for example). While philosophically, that is essentially correct, it is not a practical way to use the term. So when I refer to fact, I refer to the practical definition…confirmed to such a degree of high probability that it would be ridiculous to not consider it so.
Side Note: Did you see Symphony’s denial that America has strongly religious origins? How, obstinate can he/she be? Not as obstinate as you should be when doing your research into the religious foundations of our government or lack thereof Doesn’t our Pledge of Allegiance contain “one nation under God”?* Like I said, Neal, do your research first. Do you know where “one nation under God” came from? It was originally never a part of the Pledge of Allegiance. The original version was actually written in 1892 and was published in Youth’s Companion, a magazine for teenagers. The original version went, “I pledge allegiance to my flag and to the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.” The Pledge remained mostly unchanged until the paranoia and hysteria stemming from Sen. Joseph R. McCarthy’s “red scare” hearings swept the nation in the 1950s. Fearing Communism might cross the Atlantic and engulf America, a feeling arose in Congress and throughout parts of the nation that by acknowledging “God” as our national symbol, America would be protected from the Communist menace. Scoring a religious Trifecta of sorts, the Pledge was amended in 1954 to include the words “under God;” legislation to add the motto “In God We Trust” to all coins and currency was passed in 1955; and the national motto “E Pluribus Unum” [out of many, one] was changed to “In God We Trust” in 1956. Thus, these mottos have nothing to do with the foundations of our country…they were because of the communist scare fueled by Senator McCarthy in the 1950’s. Again, the original national motto was NOT "In God We Trust."Do you not know it is illegal to burn money, since it is a Federal Document? What does that have to do with the religious foundations of the country or lack thereof?Open you purse/wallet pull out a bill or coin, don’t you see “In God We Trust” written on it? Yes, and it’s there because of the 1950’s Red Scare, not because of the imaginary Christian foundations of our country.Know the Declaration of Independence, “…the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them”,****** And once again, do your homework, Neal. Why did they say “Nature’s God?” Because this is a Deist concept of God, not the Christian concept. It is known that a number of the founding forefathers were Deists. Deists preferred not to use the unqualified term “God” in their conversation and writings because of its Christian connotations. Accordingly, they substituted expressions like those that Washington used in his inaugural address or else they referred to their creator as “nature’s God,” the deity who had created the world and then left it to operate by natural law.
********Science proves OVER AND OVER that order moves to chaos. Chaos does not move to order. Nature makes order into disorder, the complex moves to the simple, the sharp to the dull. I know, I’ll get slammed for saying this, but it’s a simple fact. ********* Michele, you are making the same mistake that all creationists do regarding entropy. Creationists misinterpret the 2nd law of thermodynamics to say that things invariably progress from order to disorder. However, this is only true in closed systems. Life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive everything. A mature tomato plant can have more usable energy than the seed it grew from, correct? This is order from disorder. Why should anyone expect that the next generation of tomatoes can’t have more usable energy still? Order from disorder is also common in nonliving systems. Snowflakes, sand dunes, tornadoes, stalactites, graded river beds, and lightning are just a few examples of order coming from disorder in nature; none require an intelligent program to achieve that order. Thus, your “simple fact” is simply not true.A single celled organism turned to a multi celled one as a defense mechanism not evolution. Yes, mutation occured, but that is micro, not macro evoution. You contradict yourself. First you claim it’s a defense mechanism, not evolution. Then you claim it is micro evolution. Evolution is a change in allele frequency over time. So it is evolution. It is not a defense mechanism…a defense mechanism is an acute adaptive strategy put forth by an organism. This was not an acute adaptive strategy. Second, the organism now keys out now as being in the genus Coelosphaerium, which is in a different family from Chlorella. Thus, it is in a completely different genus of organisms. It is not classified as the same organism…thus it is not merely a “defense mechanism.” Third, if a single cellular organism changing to a multicellular organism (a major change) does not constitute macroevolution to you, what constitutes macroevolution for you? A reptile changing to a mammal? This will never be observed because it’s a process that takes millions of years. If we ever observed a reptile change to a mammal, that would be strong evidence against evolution. Michele, what you must demonstrate is that microevolution cannot lead to macroevolution over time. Given enough time, small cumulative changes will definitely lead to large scale changes so that the resulting organism is very dissimilar to the initial one. And the rate of change in the fossil record falls right in line with the slow rates of change observed in today’s organisms.
symphony why are you so hell-bent on forcing your O-P-I-N-I-O-N on everyone responding to this thread? The bottom line is, God has not been disproven by science and science has been disproven by God. What exists in this life is what we have to work with now - what happens after we go we will all undoubtedly know evetually (whether that is a good thing or not). To each his own…
First, Rav, an opinion is not based on evidence. For example, if I tell you that Symphony X is the best band in the world, what type of objective evidence can I provide to support that? None, which makes it an opinion. Evolutionary theory is not an opinion. It is no more an opinion than germ theory, atomic theory, theory of gravity, theory of relativity, etc. It is based on evidence. In fact, I’m the only one in this thread who has backed up my statements with objective evidence…evidence that all of you can seek out for yourself if you wanted…if there is something wrong with my evidence, it is free for everyone to call me on it…but no one has. Second, responding to people’s comments in this thread has nothing to do with forcing my position down everyone’s throat. According to you, if I see something I disagree with, I’m supposed to keep my mouth shut? But it’s OK for everyone else to state their positions? I really could care less whether people agree with evolutionary theory, but the fact is, a lot of misinformation gets spread around about it by people who have not taken the time to study evolutionary theory. They get their information about evolutionary theory from creationist propaganda. If I see such misinformation, then I’m going to speak up.
Symphony, you are either deliberately employing false equivocation or lack the conceptual understanding of the Uncertainty Principle.
The Uncertain Principle arises from our inability to measure the momentum and energy or a particle without disturbing the system. The change in momentum and energy caused by our measuring of the system is called “uncertainties” which has a value we are unable to determine.
The term “uncertainties” is a technical definition for the currently unknown amount of energy of momentum we add to a system when we attempt to measure it.
Taken from: http://www.fnal.gov/
***Virtual particles" are real – they exist in that they can be detected and can interact. But they are fleeting – they are soon gone with no trace of their existence. This phenomenon is related to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle of quantum physics. Uncertainty in time multiplied by uncertainty in energy is equal to a constanst, Planck’s constant. If you probe a particle or even the vacuum with a short time scale, there can be a large amount of energy in which virtual particles can come into existence.
Hope this helps and encourages you to keep learning.
Dr. William Wester
Fermilab ***
It should be intuitively obvious, using the term “uncertainty” that is consistent with the definition given to it in Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle in conjunction with the text about, that something does not come from nothing (in this case at least). The virtual particles are the result of the unknown about of energy(aka uncertainty) being introduced.
Neal, I stand corrected on my assertions about the Uncertainty Principle and I thank you for pointing out my errors and backing up your statements with objective evidence.
I am not saying that you should not back your statements up, but don’t use scientific jargon to stretch points and truths. I am earning a Biology degree from an extremely well-respected Ivy League school in the Boston area and will pursure a career in medicine - I know my genetics, my physics, etc. I just think that you are a bit close-minded about this subject in regards to other people’s ideas. It is a theory after all, not a principle…
I’ve never understood why, if you disagree with creationists, suddenly you are “close-minded.” That is a cop-out. If I’m a juror and the prosecutor has no evidence of an individual’s guilt, but the defense has strong evidence of his innocence, am I supposed to be “open-minded” and still accept the individual might be guilty? Are all viewpoints equally valid whether there is significant evidence backing the views or not? No, they aren’t. If they are, then flat-earthers should be getting equal time in science classes. Evolutionary theory is the only theory that adequately explains the diversity of life on this planet…that is not close-minded, it is simply looking at the evidence and the inevitable conclusion from it. The fossil record shows clearly that a) life forms go progressively from those that are more different from today’s, to those that are more similar to today’s (i.e., the younger it is, the more similar to modern life it is). And it also shows abundant transitional forms between the older forms and the more recent ones. Now add to that the phylogenetic evidence of nested heirarchies, which correlates perfectly with the fossil record (i.e., phylogenetically derived features appear later in the fossil record). Add also to that the correlated biogeographical patterns of both modern and fossil life. And what you’ve got can only be explained through evolution. The biogeographical patterns in particular cannot be explained by creationism. I wonder if the creationists have ever wondered why many animals and plants have had distributions much more limited than they might possibly have. Evolution is a natural explanation; some superpowerful creator(s) would not be blocked by the barriers that keep many species from spreading over their complete possible ranges.
Im not arguing against Evolution - i am simply stating that i think it is imperative to take into account all different types of viewpoints. The problem us scientists have is that we believe everything is final, and we prove ourselves wrong time and time again. For example, in the past few years, astronomers based at prestigious universities have upped the number of galaxies in the universe from 15 billion to 90 billion. Just the other day, yet another amino acid was discovered, and all that “junk” DNA humans have may not be junk after all. My point is, as humans, as finite creatures, we have a limited ability to understand what we are a miniscule fraction of - namely, the universe. I do believe in evolution. However, I do not believe something can come from nothing. And i do believe that those who claim to know the ULTIMATE truth, whether it be claims of knowledge of how merciful God works or denouncement of anything that can’t be studied or seen in a petri dish are the biggest bullshitters of all.
Ray, I think you and I are closer to agreement than we may seem. I would like to address your statement denouncement of anything that can’t be studied or seen in a petri dish. Scientists do not denounce anything that can’t be studied or seen in a petri dish (otherwise, all scientists would be atheistic naturalists which is simply not the case). For example, numerous evolutionary scientists are theists (I know you aren’t arguing against evolution…I’m just making a point here), and of these a number are Christians who favor a metaphorical interpretation of Genesis. Everyone seems to think that evolution somehow disproves the existence of God when it doesn’t. I think that’s why creationists are afraid of evolution…it denies that man was specially created…but it, in no way, disproves the existence of God. We have all these creationists who want to hang on to that idea of special creation and try to pass it off as science by using terms like “intelligent design” and organizations like the “Institute for Creation Research.” However, these organizations are not doing anything scientific. They aren’t doing studies, they aren’t making an effort to publish articles in peer-reviewed journals, they aren’t formulating hypotheses and testing them, they aren’t collecting data, they aren’t forming models to explain that data, and they aren’t making predictions and attempting to confirm or falsify these predictions. Evolutionists are doing all these things which puts it in the realm of true science. Creationism is nothing but pseudoscience. It looks scientific to the average person who is uneducated in science but it is nothing more than a disguised religious agenda. Go to any creationist website and you’ll see Christian religious articles (if these are science websites, what are religious articles doing there?). The ICR requires their members to sign an oath stating that the Bible is infallible and Genesis represents the true story of creation. You will find many articles beating up strawman caricatures of evolutionary theory. Of course, they are doing nothing but setting up a false dichotomy. Even if evolutionary theory were falsified, that would not automatically make creationism true, because any new theory would still need to explain all the other existing evidence that evolutionary theory does explain. Creationism doesn’t do this, so a completely new theory would need to be developed. The hidden religious agenda of the creationists becomes obvious (you won’t see evolutionary sites condemning Christianity, yet I go to creationist websites and they condemn atheism) when you go to these sites. They rely on dogma, not science. This is why creationism does not belong in a science class. That’s fine if it’s taught in a philosophy class or something along those lines, but until creationists actually start using the scientific method and formulating their own theories based on evidence, rather than beating up strawmen, they do not deserve a place in science classrooms. U.S. highschool students have already been demonstrated to be very poor in relation to some other countries in science education. Teaching creationism in science classrooms would only do these students more disservice.
Before i respond again Symphony, Im glad that for once two people can have a non-confrontational discussion of this infinitely complex issue…I agree that creationism does not belong in the high school classroom, but i Have no objections to a college classroom. I also think it is important to have an open forum in a class like that. I also agree that many theists and creationists feel as if the evolutionary theory disproves of a God, and this makes it impossible to make evolution appeal to them. I think if scientists approached the situation differently, possibly a little more openly (i know that many scientists are theists as they are amazed at the immense complexity of things, but there is a large share of atheists as well), there would be less confrontation between scientists and religous figures.