Kirk Cameron usually does a good job of making people, and many times these people are Christian, realize that you don’t go to heaven by “acting good.” I can’t speak for his beliefs on evolution. I belief in both creation and evolution. Both obviously had to happen. Things had to come from somewhere and have changed over time.
Three things you cannot talk about in a bar ( and apparently here ) without starting a fight 1. Trailer Parks 2. Politics 3. God
[quote]ecoetter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
ecoetter wrote:
DoubleDuce wrote:
You do understand that the theory of “so called evolution science” and the Big Bang theory have nothing in common and make no assertions concerning one another, right?
-Eric
Considering that one is the scientific cause of the other, I�??�??�??�??�?�¢??d say they were related. But I�??�??�??�??�?�¢??m curious why you didn�??�??�??�??�?�¢??t chastise the anti-bible guys when they bring up stories like Lott when criticizing the biblical creation story?
“Scientific cause”.
Really?
So a cosmological theory must account for every theory proposed thereafter since, well, without it, there would be nothing to propose. (Note to self: Big Bang is the scientific cause for atomic theory, circuit theory, quantum field theory, speculative reason, etc.)
I must have fallen asleep in that portion of my astrophysics lecture.
-Eric
Considering the big bang resulted in the governing laws of the universe and everything from chemistry to planetary motion is dependent on them, yes. All science is physics, physics started at the big bang.
Evolution is also entirely dependent on quantum theory. Quantum is the basis of chemistry, chemistry to biology, biology to evolution. See I connected dots even though my quantum mechanics professor never lectured on it.
But in a deeper context of the whole discussion they are also closely related because the creation idea covers both areas so discussing both is entirely on topic.
But thanks for answering my question, oh wait you didn’t. Did they teach you to wipe your ass in astrophysics, or do you not know about that either? The connections I’m making are called independent thought, you might figure that out once you graduate and have to think for yourself.
Connecting the dots is a far different assertion from saying A is the scientific cause of B, as you stated earlier.
[/quote]
By connecting the dots, I’m saying all science is one theory, or at least an attempt at it. Maybe cause wasn’t the right word to use.
Dalton was also wrong, but could be seen as the foundation for both quantum and chemistry which once again proves my point that they are in fact the same pursuit. Thanks for pointing out the common ancestor, nyuk nyuk.
Yes, I know people like that. Was there a point to that, unless you are ascribing those qualities to me, why bring them up? Do you know science believers that believe that Newtonian physics are correct, that there are analytical solutions in the physical world, and many parts of science are law in the universe? See, I can do it too. Heck I even know a guy that believes science will know all there is to know within his lifetime. Talk about a messed up faith.
I’m sorry, but they don’t have to be argued separately if you believe there is a unified theory. That’s the way science works.
I get tired of that too. I also get tired of science believers that make the argument science disproves the philosophic origins of life and existence.
However, believing something like the big bang, or to a lesser extent evolution, does require putting a time constraint on the “when” of origins. Some people do have a problem with that and there isn’t an argument against it, so I see it as their prerogative.
You don’t see impact in on field of science interacting, sometimes substantially, with another?
Electronics, magnetism, chemistry, materials, planetary physics. Hell, are atom colliders chemistry experiments or quantum ones? BOTH. The practical fall out from general relativity/quantum (pursuit of a unified theory) has had substantial impacts on almost every field of science. I have a feeling you already know at least a lot of what I’m asserting and are just trying to see if I’ll dance for you.
[quote]
I commend you on your independent thinking, and I hope that skill serves you well in life, but in this case it’s rather misguided. I’d love to type more, but I have to figure out how to wipe this ass of mine. (Damn, no-good astrophysics professor…)
-Eric
Edit: I seem to have avoided your question once again. Sorry 
I’m not sure if I know what you’re referring to about Lott - mind pointing me in a better direction? [/quote]
Earlier in the thread someone actually mentioned Lott in his critic of biblical creation. I was wondering why you didn’t point out that many of the “science guys” in this thread were attempting to argue the bible as a whole, but felt the need to harp on people whom, according to you, were trying to argue science as a whole.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Also, to be clear: there is no scientific debate regarding whether all(or most, depending on what you think of some types of bacteria) species on earth possess a universal common ancestor.
Whoa. You owe to yourself to do some research into creationists’ perspective on this topic.
[/quote]
Emphasis on SCIENTIFIC debate. That is like saying before you say that there is no scientific debate that homeopathy is bunk fantasy that you owe it to yourself to do some research on shamans’ perspective on this topic…why?
Duce, there isn’t actually a unified field theory… I’m just saying
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Duce, there isn’t actually a unified field theory… I’m just saying[/quote]
That’s why I used the word believe. Science is a pursuit of it either way. The fact that there are different “laws” for different situations is a problem for science.
[quote]fleeben wrote:
Professor X wrote:
I believe in God. I also probably know more than you do about mitochondrial DNA considering all of those genetics related classes I took in school so it blows my mind that some of you actually believe that people who believe in God are so stupid or uneducated that ignorance is why we believe.
That doesn’t make you look too bright. You don’t really want to know what educated Christians think. You just want to tear down the act of belief in a higher power.
Who here has written that the Earth is only 6,000 years old? Anyone? I sure as HELL don’t believe it so why do you think everyone who believes in God does?
Why do you think an omnipotent entity would need a “beginning”?
Because saying you know a lot about [subject] is oh-so-convincing. You must have been too busy cataloging your vast knowledge of mDNA to bother reading the question mark at the end of my QUESTION about whether you believed the earth was six thousand years old.
For the record, I already know what educated Christians think. I was raised catholic and my extended family, who remain (I would say nominally, but is there any other type?) catholic all accept the Law of Natural Selection and Evolution. I am wondering how many people in this debate seriously believe that the earth is six thousand years old and if they do, what explanatory power creationism has, since it leaves unanswered the question of God’s own origin.[/quote]
lol 5 posts, all about this, and a pic of brad pitt as your avatar. Why are you even here haha
[quote]Minto11 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
Minto11 wrote:
pushharder wrote:
I admire people of faith. It must be nice to have an unshakable belief, but they are impossible to talk to because their faith prevents them from objectively looking at anything that might not jive with their faith. There’s nothing about believing the overwhelming evidence that points to evolution that in anyway disproves the existence of god. The belief in a common ancestor doesn’t preclude the belief in the creation of that ancestor.
[/quote]
You do know that darwin wasnt a scientist… like at all… right?
One could argue that darwin’s works have even accelerated racial tensions today. Social darwinism is based on the thought of men being born superior to other men. Sound familiar? Darwin was more of a social antagonist than a scientist. If youve ever even read any of darwin’s less popular works, youd realize that he was a huge racist, him and his buddies often referring to black people and other races as less developed and inferior. Thats just WRONG.
On another note, believing in evolution ultimately results in realizing that your existence is pointless.
Just to die and feed the earth? C’mon now.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
One could argue that darwin’s works have even accelerated racial tensions today. Social darwinism is based on the thought of men being born superior to other men. Sound familiar? [/quote]
Wasn’t this one of Ben Stein’s gems from the movie Expelled? Alongside evolution not explaining how life began or how the universe started… and lots of references about lightning striking puddles of mud?
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
One could argue that darwin’s works have even accelerated racial tensions today. Social darwinism is based on the thought of men being born superior to other men. Sound familiar? Darwin was more of a social antagonist than a scientist. If youve ever even read any of darwin’s less popular works, youd realize that he was a huge racist, him and his buddies often referring to black people and other races as less developed and inferior. Thats just WRONG.
On another note, believing in evolution ultimately results in realizing that your existence is pointless.
Just to die and feed the earth? C’mon now.[/quote]
Exactly! The problem with evolution to the Chrtistian is that it does not in all represent the way a loving God would have for people that he loves. I mean to set the world in process and to then leave us with these cruel means to develop. Not the God that I believe in.
Look there are some really smart people on both sides of the debate on this board (me excluded) because I have never set through an astrophysics class, could barely make it through freshman chemistry and physics. But I want to be civil, I think that debate on this issue is reasonable and it entertains me. However as I said earlier God is not ringing his hands over this issue and is not worried about a debate on T-Nation deciding the fate of the universe, or any debate over this issue. Kirk Cameron is not going to decide the fate of the universe. When Christian start sticking to the real issue which is showing the love of Christ to ALL, then we will make a difference. I mean no one any disrespect, because to me it does not shake my faith in anyway. And if that means I am close minded then so be it (in all due respect)
[quote]Fezzik wrote:
Most of the ideas from the Origin of Species have been completely debunked[/quote]
Proof, and irreducible complexity isn’t and never will be a valid argument.
[quote]Sarev0k wrote:
One could argue that darwin’s works have even accelerated racial tensions today. Social darwinism is based on the thought of men being born superior to other men. Sound familiar? Darwin was more of a social antagonist than a scientist. If youve ever even read any of darwin’s less popular works, youd realize that he was a huge racist, him and his buddies often referring to black people and other races as less developed and inferior. Thats just WRONG.
On another note, believing in evolution ultimately results in realizing that your existence is pointless.
Just to die and feed the earth? C’mon now.[/quote]
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature.
– The Descent of Man
How about you go read a book.
[quote]mattfelts wrote:
Sarev0k wrote:
One could argue that darwin’s works have even accelerated racial tensions today. Social darwinism is based on the thought of men being born superior to other men. Sound familiar? Darwin was more of a social antagonist than a scientist. If youve ever even read any of darwin’s less popular works, youd realize that he was a huge racist, him and his buddies often referring to black people and other races as less developed and inferior. Thats just WRONG.
On another note, believing in evolution ultimately results in realizing that your existence is pointless.
Just to die and feed the earth? C’mon now.
Exactly! The problem with evolution to the Chrtistian is that it does not in all represent the way a loving God would have for people that he loves. I mean to set the world in process and to then leave us with these cruel means to develop. Not the God that I believe in.
Look there are some really smart people on both sides of the debate on this board (me excluded) because I have never set through an astrophysics class, could barely make it through freshman chemistry and physics. But I want to be civil, I think that debate on this issue is reasonable and it entertains me. However as I said earlier God is not ringing his hands over this issue and is not worried about a debate on T-Nation deciding the fate of the universe, or any debate over this issue. Kirk Cameron is not going to decide the fate of the universe. When Christian start sticking to the real issue which is showing the love of Christ to ALL, then we will make a difference. I mean no one any disrespect, because to me it does not shake my faith in anyway. And if that means I am close minded then so be it (in all due respect)[/quote]
Basically you start with the answer and look for evidence to support it.
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information."
-Excerpt from The Answers in Genesis “Statement of Faith”
But they’re real, objective scientists, too.
A response to the claim that creationists are “not allowed” to publish papers in mainstream science journals (interestingly, a 1985 poll showed that out of 135,000 article submissions to 68 journals, only 18 papers could be considered to be supporting creationism – hmmm).
That, and other responses:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA325.html
In fact, here is a complete list of responses to creationist complaints for those interested:
And every poll I look at has creationism being supported by <5% of all scientists surveyed. Which is interesting, considering how badly it (supposedly) is bleeding.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
FWIW, TalkOrigins is famously known for being as or more religious in its atheism as any conventional religion ever was. I wouldn’t be surprised if there’d be some burnings at the stake if they could get away with it.[/quote]
Can you link to the portion of their website where they explicitly state that no information is valid unless it supports what they set out to prove in the first place?
Or, at least provide some evidence for it being “famously known” to the extent where it actually does the above?